<?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>2010 (9) TMI 407 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202814</link>
    <description>A manufacturer that elected to claim the small scale exemption under Notification No. 9/2000-C.E. could not withdraw that choice during the same financial year. The notification was treated as applying for the full financial year once the benefit had been opted for, and its scheme did not permit a mid-year change of election. On that interpretation, the view that the option could not be revoked during the year was upheld, and the adjudicating authority&#039;s order was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Mar 2011 12:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 407 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202814</link>
      <description>A manufacturer that elected to claim the small scale exemption under Notification No. 9/2000-C.E. could not withdraw that choice during the same financial year. The notification was treated as applying for the full financial year once the benefit had been opted for, and its scheme did not permit a mid-year change of election. On that interpretation, the view that the option could not be revoked during the year was upheld, and the adjudicating authority&#039;s order was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202814</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>