<?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>2009 (5) TMI 91 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35445</link>
    <description>An exemption or concessional duty notification cannot be denied merely because registration was obtained later when the notification does not make registration a condition, the assessee had already disclosed the manufacturing activity, and the record showed bona fide conduct. In this matter, the appellant had filed the relevant declaration for unbranded chewing tobacco, sought clarification on the new levy, obtained registration after departmental visit, and paid duty at the applicable concessional rate. On that basis, denial of notification benefit was found unwarranted, and the demand beyond the duty already paid, along with penalties on the firm and proprietor, was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74032" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 91 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35445</link>
      <description>An exemption or concessional duty notification cannot be denied merely because registration was obtained later when the notification does not make registration a condition, the assessee had already disclosed the manufacturing activity, and the record showed bona fide conduct. In this matter, the appellant had filed the relevant declaration for unbranded chewing tobacco, sought clarification on the new levy, obtained registration after departmental visit, and paid duty at the applicable concessional rate. On that basis, denial of notification benefit was found unwarranted, and the demand beyond the duty already paid, along with penalties on the firm and proprietor, was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>