<?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>2019 (1) TMI 6 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372841</link>
    <description>The appeal involved eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE for a new Manufacturing Unit. The Customs, Excise &amp;amp; Service Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld exemption for goods not in the &#039;Negative List&#039; but denied it for &#039;After-Shave Lotion&#039;. The appellant failed to prove filing a Declaration for exempted goods like &#039;Creams&#039; and &#039;After-Shave Lotion, leading to dismissal. The Tribunal&#039;s error in assuming the Declaration&#039;s filing date was disputed, but the Court held it as a question of fact. The High Court emphasized the burden of proof on the assessee and dismissed the appeal for lack of substantial legal questions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2019 12:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=550385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 6 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372841</link>
      <description>The appeal involved eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE for a new Manufacturing Unit. The Customs, Excise &amp;amp; Service Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld exemption for goods not in the &#039;Negative List&#039; but denied it for &#039;After-Shave Lotion&#039;. The appellant failed to prove filing a Declaration for exempted goods like &#039;Creams&#039; and &#039;After-Shave Lotion, leading to dismissal. The Tribunal&#039;s error in assuming the Declaration&#039;s filing date was disputed, but the Court held it as a question of fact. The High Court emphasized the burden of proof on the assessee and dismissed the appeal for lack of substantial legal questions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372841</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>