<?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 (7) TMI 747 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208638</link>
    <description>An otherwise applicable exemption notification cannot be denied merely because the assessee raised the claim at a later stage. The Revenue objected only that Notification No. 76/86-C.E. was not claimed during investigation or earlier, but did not dispute its substantive availability. The Tribunal treated the exemption as beneficial in nature and held that belated assertion alone does not defeat entitlement. It also noted that the Revenue had not specifically challenged the setting aside of penalties on the other respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; order granting the exemption and cancelling the demand and penalties was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2013 15:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182100" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 747 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208638</link>
      <description>An otherwise applicable exemption notification cannot be denied merely because the assessee raised the claim at a later stage. The Revenue objected only that Notification No. 76/86-C.E. was not claimed during investigation or earlier, but did not dispute its substantive availability. The Tribunal treated the exemption as beneficial in nature and held that belated assertion alone does not defeat entitlement. It also noted that the Revenue had not specifically challenged the setting aside of penalties on the other respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; order granting the exemption and cancelling the demand and penalties was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208638</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>