<?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 (1) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42100</link>
    <description>Entitlement to excise rebate under the notification depended on whether the factory had worked during the base period, not on production having occurred in the identical corresponding months of the preceding year. Nil production in May-June 1972 did not, by itself, defeat the assessee&#039;s claim where the base-period condition was satisfied. The contrary demand was therefore unsustainable, and the rebate was held admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:07:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80629" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (1) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42100</link>
      <description>Entitlement to excise rebate under the notification depended on whether the factory had worked during the base period, not on production having occurred in the identical corresponding months of the preceding year. Nil production in May-June 1972 did not, by itself, defeat the assessee&#039;s claim where the base-period condition was satisfied. The contrary demand was therefore unsustainable, and the rebate was held admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42100</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>