<?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>2021 (10) TMI 134 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413082</link>
    <description>The exemption notifications allowed a manufacturer to opt out of the prescribed table rate and seek fixation of a special rate on actual value addition. In the circumstances of prolonged litigation and interim orders, the Court treated the application as having arisen only after the Supreme Court&#039;s final decision and found it was filed within a reasonable time thereafter. The 30 September stipulation was read as a procedural measure, not an absolute bar, and the department&#039;s earlier agreement to consider the request weighed against a limitation objection. The rejection for delay was not sustained, and the Principal Commissioner was directed to decide the application on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2022 10:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657558" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (10) TMI 134 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413082</link>
      <description>The exemption notifications allowed a manufacturer to opt out of the prescribed table rate and seek fixation of a special rate on actual value addition. In the circumstances of prolonged litigation and interim orders, the Court treated the application as having arisen only after the Supreme Court&#039;s final decision and found it was filed within a reasonable time thereafter. The 30 September stipulation was read as a procedural measure, not an absolute bar, and the department&#039;s earlier agreement to consider the request weighed against a limitation objection. The rejection for delay was not sustained, and the Principal Commissioner was directed to decide the application on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>