<?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>2003 (11) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46868</link>
    <description>An exemption under Notification No. 193/86-C.E. is available only where the immediate raw material used in manufacture had actually suffered excise duty at the appropriate rate and no credit was taken; nil-duty or exempt inputs do not satisfy the condition that duty has &quot;already been paid.&quot; The expression applies to the immediate input in the manufacturing chain, not to an earlier processing stage. The text also notes that a later circular cannot govern an earlier order, earlier instructions tied to a different notification have limited relevance, and a competitor&#039;s mistaken benefit does not create a claim of parity. The exemption claim therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:32:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85388" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46868</link>
      <description>An exemption under Notification No. 193/86-C.E. is available only where the immediate raw material used in manufacture had actually suffered excise duty at the appropriate rate and no credit was taken; nil-duty or exempt inputs do not satisfy the condition that duty has &quot;already been paid.&quot; The expression applies to the immediate input in the manufacturing chain, not to an earlier processing stage. The text also notes that a later circular cannot govern an earlier order, earlier instructions tied to a different notification have limited relevance, and a competitor&#039;s mistaken benefit does not create a claim of parity. The exemption claim therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>