<?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>2014 (4) TMI 1221 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274459</link>
    <description>Where two exemption notifications are simultaneously available for the same goods, the assessee may opt for the more beneficial one. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that, in the context of exemptions, the general-specific rule does not override the taxpayer&#039;s choice between concurrent notifications. On that basis, denial of the alternative exemption was held unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:19:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=530943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 1221 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274459</link>
      <description>Where two exemption notifications are simultaneously available for the same goods, the assessee may opt for the more beneficial one. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that, in the context of exemptions, the general-specific rule does not override the taxpayer&#039;s choice between concurrent notifications. On that basis, denial of the alternative exemption was held unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>