<?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>1987 (2) TMI 66 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41852</link>
    <description>An exemption notification must be construed according to its express language, and where it states that it operates read with an earlier notification then the earlier input-duty credit exemption must be applied first, with the later exemption worked out only afterwards. The Court distinguished valuation authority because it concerned assessable value, not the sequence for applying exemption notifications. It also rejected the argument that such construction caused impermissible double taxation, holding that clear notification language controls. The Tribunal&#039;s view on the order of application was affirmed and the assessee&#039;s contrary contention failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (2) TMI 66 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41852</link>
      <description>An exemption notification must be construed according to its express language, and where it states that it operates read with an earlier notification then the earlier input-duty credit exemption must be applied first, with the later exemption worked out only afterwards. The Court distinguished valuation authority because it concerned assessable value, not the sequence for applying exemption notifications. It also rejected the argument that such construction caused impermissible double taxation, holding that clear notification language controls. The Tribunal&#039;s view on the order of application was affirmed and the assessee&#039;s contrary contention failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41852</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>