<?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>2015 (8) TMI 296 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262379</link>
    <description>The appellant appealed against the denial of exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE. Despite initial delays in providing input details, the Tribunal found the appellant substantially complied with exemption conditions. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting exemption benefits for the disputed period as suppression charges were dropped and compliance was evident. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellant based on the proceedings&#039; findings and interpretations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392578" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 296 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262379</link>
      <description>The appellant appealed against the denial of exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE. Despite initial delays in providing input details, the Tribunal found the appellant substantially complied with exemption conditions. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting exemption benefits for the disputed period as suppression charges were dropped and compliance was evident. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellant based on the proceedings&#039; findings and interpretations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262379</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>