<?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>2008 (4) TMI 102 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30314</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court clarified that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked for the entire period in a case involving a claim of exemption for Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) manufacturing. The Court restricted the show cause notice to a specific period and emphasized the need to determine whether RMC was produced on-site based on technological advancements and specific facts. Due to discrepancies in the manufacturing locations, the Court remitted the case for further consideration by the Tribunal, allowing both parties to present additional evidence for a comprehensive review. The Appeals were allowed with no order as to costs, favoring the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 102 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30314</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court clarified that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked for the entire period in a case involving a claim of exemption for Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) manufacturing. The Court restricted the show cause notice to a specific period and emphasized the need to determine whether RMC was produced on-site based on technological advancements and specific facts. Due to discrepancies in the manufacturing locations, the Court remitted the case for further consideration by the Tribunal, allowing both parties to present additional evidence for a comprehensive review. The Appeals were allowed with no order as to costs, favoring the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30314</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>