<?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>2014 (9) TMI 104 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251078</link>
    <description>Where two exemption notifications applied to the same goods, the assessee could elect the notification granting the greater benefit, including where the chosen notification did not impose a restriction on Cenvat credit. The administration could not compel the assessee to remain under the less beneficial exemption merely because it was otherwise available. On that basis, the demand was held unsustainable and the assessee&#039;s appeal succeeded because the more favourable exemption notification was lawfully chosen.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=364437" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 104 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251078</link>
      <description>Where two exemption notifications applied to the same goods, the assessee could elect the notification granting the greater benefit, including where the chosen notification did not impose a restriction on Cenvat credit. The administration could not compel the assessee to remain under the less beneficial exemption merely because it was otherwise available. On that basis, the demand was held unsustainable and the assessee&#039;s appeal succeeded because the more favourable exemption notification was lawfully chosen.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251078</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>