<?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>2007 (8) TMI 318 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33508</link>
    <description>Exemption notification benefit was treated as a question of law capable of being raised at the appellate stage, so the appellate authority should have considered the claim rather than rejecting it as not raised earlier. The view that the notifications were not in force on the relevant date was not treated as conclusive and required proper reconsideration before refusal of relief. The appellate order was set aside and the matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh examination of the exemption claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72138" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 318 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33508</link>
      <description>Exemption notification benefit was treated as a question of law capable of being raised at the appellate stage, so the appellate authority should have considered the claim rather than rejecting it as not raised earlier. The view that the notifications were not in force on the relevant date was not treated as conclusive and required proper reconsideration before refusal of relief. The appellate order was set aside and the matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh examination of the exemption claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>