<?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>2001 (3) TMI 130 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48875</link>
    <description>Exemption under a notification depends on proof of the factual conditions precedent for its application. Where the assessee does not establish the necessary circumstances to attract the claimed benefit, entitlement to the concession fails on the proved facts, and an abstract reference on the scope or binding nature of the notification need not be answered. The Tribunal confined itself to the factual record, found that the prescribed conditions under the notifications were not satisfied, and declined to decide hypothetical legal questions. The appeals therefore failed on merits, and the orders below were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 10:10:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87355" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 130 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48875</link>
      <description>Exemption under a notification depends on proof of the factual conditions precedent for its application. Where the assessee does not establish the necessary circumstances to attract the claimed benefit, entitlement to the concession fails on the proved facts, and an abstract reference on the scope or binding nature of the notification need not be answered. The Tribunal confined itself to the factual record, found that the prescribed conditions under the notifications were not satisfied, and declined to decide hypothetical legal questions. The appeals therefore failed on merits, and the orders below were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>