<?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>2016 (12) TMI 1050 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336405</link>
    <description>Exemption for clearances to a 100% EOU was denied because the manufacturer failed to satisfy the conditions in the exemption notification, including registration, prescribed excise procedure, and return filing. The Tribunal accepted that exemption notifications require strict compliance with their stated conditions, and non-observance cannot be treated as a mere technical lapse. On that basis, the claim to exemption was held unsustainable and the denial of benefit was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2018 17:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1050 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336405</link>
      <description>Exemption for clearances to a 100% EOU was denied because the manufacturer failed to satisfy the conditions in the exemption notification, including registration, prescribed excise procedure, and return filing. The Tribunal accepted that exemption notifications require strict compliance with their stated conditions, and non-observance cannot be treated as a mere technical lapse. On that basis, the claim to exemption was held unsustainable and the denial of benefit was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>