<?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>2010 (8) TMI 929 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172658</link>
    <description>Conditional excise exemption under Notification No. 13/2003-CE was available only on strict proof of compliance with the prescribed purchase and sourcing requirements. The record showed that tea leaves were procured through middlemen under written agreements, and there was no reliable evidence that the notification conditions were satisfied. Inconsistencies between receipts, delivery challans and signatures supported the adverse factual findings, and later materials not produced before the Tribunal could not displace them. The appellant therefore failed to establish entitlement to the exemption, and the refusal of the benefit was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2015 15:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 929 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172658</link>
      <description>Conditional excise exemption under Notification No. 13/2003-CE was available only on strict proof of compliance with the prescribed purchase and sourcing requirements. The record showed that tea leaves were procured through middlemen under written agreements, and there was no reliable evidence that the notification conditions were satisfied. Inconsistencies between receipts, delivery challans and signatures supported the adverse factual findings, and later materials not produced before the Tribunal could not displace them. The appellant therefore failed to establish entitlement to the exemption, and the refusal of the benefit was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172658</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>