<?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>1986 (3) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42133</link>
    <description>An exemption from central excise duty under the 1963 notification, as amended in 1965, was available only when the ingots were cut or broken into a shape resembling the specified products under Item 26AA; use of ingots in their original form did not satisfy the notification&#039;s restrictive conditions, so the exemption could not be claimed and the duty levy was upheld. The amendment introducing Item (IV) was treated as conferring an additional benefit rather than withdrawing an existing right, so no prior hearing was required before it applied. The principle stated is that exemption notifications must be strictly complied with, while a beneficial notification change does not ordinarily attract natural justice requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:02:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80662" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (3) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42133</link>
      <description>An exemption from central excise duty under the 1963 notification, as amended in 1965, was available only when the ingots were cut or broken into a shape resembling the specified products under Item 26AA; use of ingots in their original form did not satisfy the notification&#039;s restrictive conditions, so the exemption could not be claimed and the duty levy was upheld. The amendment introducing Item (IV) was treated as conferring an additional benefit rather than withdrawing an existing right, so no prior hearing was required before it applied. The principle stated is that exemption notifications must be strictly complied with, while a beneficial notification change does not ordinarily attract natural justice requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>