<?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>2026 (1) TMI 506 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784750</link>
    <description>A conditional exemption notification operates only from the date consciously opted by the assessee in its declaration, and rectification cannot be used to substitute an earlier retrospective commencement date unless an error apparent on record is shown. The applications sought modification of a final order to extend Notification No. 50/2003-CE backward and delete the confirmed duty demand for the earlier period, but the record showed the exemption had been claimed only from the declared dates. In the absence of any apparent mistake, the request to alter the final order was rejected, with the confirmed demand for the prior period left undisturbed in favour of Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 09:31:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=877611" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 506 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784750</link>
      <description>A conditional exemption notification operates only from the date consciously opted by the assessee in its declaration, and rectification cannot be used to substitute an earlier retrospective commencement date unless an error apparent on record is shown. The applications sought modification of a final order to extend Notification No. 50/2003-CE backward and delete the confirmed duty demand for the earlier period, but the record showed the exemption had been claimed only from the declared dates. In the absence of any apparent mistake, the request to alter the final order was rejected, with the confirmed demand for the prior period left undisturbed in favour of Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784750</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>