<?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 1050 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263133</link>
    <description>Exemption notifications must be strictly complied with: footwear sold below the prescribed retail price did not qualify because the additional condition that the goods be consumed within the factory for production was not met, so the excise duty demand was sustained. Penalty was deleted because the outsourcing arose only briefly due to labour problems and the exemption claim was advanced under a bona fide belief, showing no contumacious conduct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:31:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394916" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1050 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263133</link>
      <description>Exemption notifications must be strictly complied with: footwear sold below the prescribed retail price did not qualify because the additional condition that the goods be consumed within the factory for production was not met, so the excise duty demand was sustained. Penalty was deleted because the outsourcing arose only briefly due to labour problems and the exemption claim was advanced under a bona fide belief, showing no contumacious conduct.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>