<?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>2009 (6) TMI 820 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126676</link>
    <description>An exemption under a conditional notification is available only where the claimant strictly proves compliance with every prescribed eligibility condition. Here, the benefit depended on showing that at least two-thirds of the green leaf used or processed was purchased from growers holding not more than ten hectares under tea cultivation. The record did not establish direct procurement from eligible growers, as the leaf was routed through an intermediary and the agreement did not require the intermediary to source only from qualifying growers. Inconsistent receipts, challans and payment records also failed to correlate the purchases. The exemption claim was therefore not made out and the notification benefit was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 15:27:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163568" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 820 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126676</link>
      <description>An exemption under a conditional notification is available only where the claimant strictly proves compliance with every prescribed eligibility condition. Here, the benefit depended on showing that at least two-thirds of the green leaf used or processed was purchased from growers holding not more than ten hectares under tea cultivation. The record did not establish direct procurement from eligible growers, as the leaf was routed through an intermediary and the agreement did not require the intermediary to source only from qualifying growers. Inconsistent receipts, challans and payment records also failed to correlate the purchases. The exemption claim was therefore not made out and the notification benefit was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126676</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>