<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (10) TMI 497 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123078</link>
    <description>Exemption under the notification could not be denied merely because the supporting certificate reached the department after clearance, where the certificate had been issued before clearance and was not shown to be false or unreliable. The delay in forwarding it was treated as a procedural lapse, and substantial compliance with the substantive conditions was sufficient to preserve the exemption. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:47:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160049" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 497 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123078</link>
      <description>Exemption under the notification could not be denied merely because the supporting certificate reached the department after clearance, where the certificate had been issued before clearance and was not shown to be false or unreliable. The delay in forwarding it was treated as a procedural lapse, and substantial compliance with the substantive conditions was sufficient to preserve the exemption. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123078</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>