<?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>2008 (1) TMI 761 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123328</link>
    <description>A later Central Excise notification restoring a small-scale exemption may be treated as clarificatory and retrospective where it continues an earlier consistent exemption policy. Applying that principle, the intervening period between withdrawal and restoration was not treated as a final cessation of the exemption, so the appellant remained entitled to the benefit for that period. The matter was remanded to the original authority to grant the exemption accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:40:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160298" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 761 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123328</link>
      <description>A later Central Excise notification restoring a small-scale exemption may be treated as clarificatory and retrospective where it continues an earlier consistent exemption policy. Applying that principle, the intervening period between withdrawal and restoration was not treated as a final cessation of the exemption, so the appellant remained entitled to the benefit for that period. The matter was remanded to the original authority to grant the exemption accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123328</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>