<?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 (3) TMI 360 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339857</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the respondent&#039;s entitlement to benefit under exemption Notification No. 14/2002-CE without the need for producing duty paying documents. Relying on the legal fiction created by the explanation in the notification and previous decisions, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The case clarified that manufacturers could avail the exemption without physical proof of duty payment, aligning with the interpretation provided by the Hon&#039;ble Apex Court and established precedents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2017 07:59:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460657" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 360 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339857</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the respondent&#039;s entitlement to benefit under exemption Notification No. 14/2002-CE without the need for producing duty paying documents. Relying on the legal fiction created by the explanation in the notification and previous decisions, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The case clarified that manufacturers could avail the exemption without physical proof of duty payment, aligning with the interpretation provided by the Hon&#039;ble Apex Court and established precedents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339857</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>