<?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 (5) TMI 1566 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380838</link>
    <description>Where multiple exemption notifications are otherwise available, an assessee may choose the more beneficial exemption even if it was not claimed at the time of procurement or import. The fact that the benefit was not invoked at the initial stage does not by itself bar the claim later, and an alternative exemption may be considered at the appellate stage if it is otherwise available. On that basis, denial of the exemption solely for non-claim at clearance was not sustainable, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=573195" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 1566 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380838</link>
      <description>Where multiple exemption notifications are otherwise available, an assessee may choose the more beneficial exemption even if it was not claimed at the time of procurement or import. The fact that the benefit was not invoked at the initial stage does not by itself bar the claim later, and an alternative exemption may be considered at the appellate stage if it is otherwise available. On that basis, denial of the exemption solely for non-claim at clearance was not sustainable, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>