<?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>1983 (2) TMI 308 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166051</link>
    <description>Under an excise exemption notification for set-off on copper pipes and tubes, the phrase &quot;duty payable&quot; in the second paragraph was construed to mean the duty payable at the time of assessment and grant of exemption, not the duty payable when crude copper was originally purchased. The text of the notification used different wording in its two paragraphs, indicating different operative bases, and the second paragraph was aimed at avoiding difficulty in tracing the duty history of market-purchased crude copper. As two interpretations were possible, the construction favourable to the assessee was adopted, and the demand based on the Department&#039;s view could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2014 16:26:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (2) TMI 308 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166051</link>
      <description>Under an excise exemption notification for set-off on copper pipes and tubes, the phrase &quot;duty payable&quot; in the second paragraph was construed to mean the duty payable at the time of assessment and grant of exemption, not the duty payable when crude copper was originally purchased. The text of the notification used different wording in its two paragraphs, indicating different operative bases, and the second paragraph was aimed at avoiding difficulty in tracing the duty history of market-purchased crude copper. As two interpretations were possible, the construction favourable to the assessee was adopted, and the demand based on the Department&#039;s view could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166051</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>