<?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 (3) TMI 285 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166096</link>
    <description>A beneficial excise exemption notification linked eligibility to the value of clearances in the preceding year, but did not expressly require actual prior clearances as a condition precedent. It was construed purposively so that a manufacturer with no clearances in the preceding financial year was not denied the concessional rate merely for that reason, provided the other conditions of the notification were satisfied. The interpretive approach avoided an anomalous result under which a manufacturer with some clearances within the limit could qualify, while one with none could not. Absence of prior clearances therefore did not by itself disqualify the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2014 16:26:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (3) TMI 285 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166096</link>
      <description>A beneficial excise exemption notification linked eligibility to the value of clearances in the preceding year, but did not expressly require actual prior clearances as a condition precedent. It was construed purposively so that a manufacturer with no clearances in the preceding financial year was not denied the concessional rate merely for that reason, provided the other conditions of the notification were satisfied. The interpretive approach avoided an anomalous result under which a manufacturer with some clearances within the limit could qualify, while one with none could not. Absence of prior clearances therefore did not by itself disqualify the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166096</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>