<?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 (10) TMI 247 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166726</link>
    <description>An exemption notification that fixed base period and base clearances by reference to each factory required duty to be computed factory-wise. Because the notification placed factories in different categories with distinct commencement dates and separate formulas for calculating base clearance, their individually determined clearances could not be clubbed into one manufacturer-wide figure. Aggregation would unlawfully alter the applicable base period and distort the exemption scheme. The amending notification did not authorise such clubbing or affect the analysis. The impugned orders were therefore unsustainable, and duty had to be recomputed separately for each factory with consequential refund of duty recovered wrongly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:12:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368019" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (10) TMI 247 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166726</link>
      <description>An exemption notification that fixed base period and base clearances by reference to each factory required duty to be computed factory-wise. Because the notification placed factories in different categories with distinct commencement dates and separate formulas for calculating base clearance, their individually determined clearances could not be clubbed into one manufacturer-wide figure. Aggregation would unlawfully alter the applicable base period and distort the exemption scheme. The amending notification did not authorise such clubbing or affect the analysis. The impugned orders were therefore unsustainable, and duty had to be recomputed separately for each factory with consequential refund of duty recovered wrongly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166726</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>