<?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>2017 (2) TMI 1068 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339368</link>
    <description>A manufacturer&#039;s entitlement to exemption under Notifications No. 217/86-C.E. and 281/86 was held to follow the Supreme Court&#039;s prior ruling in the assessee&#039;s own case on the identical issue. The Tribunal treated that binding decision as governing subsequent proceedings and noted that the contrary Larger Bench view had already been considered and distinguished by the Supreme Court. On that basis, the denial of exemption could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2017 12:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459715" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 1068 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339368</link>
      <description>A manufacturer&#039;s entitlement to exemption under Notifications No. 217/86-C.E. and 281/86 was held to follow the Supreme Court&#039;s prior ruling in the assessee&#039;s own case on the identical issue. The Tribunal treated that binding decision as governing subsequent proceedings and noted that the contrary Larger Bench view had already been considered and distinguished by the Supreme Court. On that basis, the denial of exemption could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>