<?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>2004 (10) TMI 179 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53465</link>
    <description>Conditional exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. was denied because the manufacturer did not produce the required pre-clearance certificate in its own favour; a certificate issued to a different entity could not satisfy the notification&#039;s strict condition. The duty demand on cover paper supplied for a UNICEF project was therefore sustained. On penalty, no separate factual basis was found to justify penal action, so penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:49:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91942" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 179 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53465</link>
      <description>Conditional exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. was denied because the manufacturer did not produce the required pre-clearance certificate in its own favour; a certificate issued to a different entity could not satisfy the notification&#039;s strict condition. The duty demand on cover paper supplied for a UNICEF project was therefore sustained. On penalty, no separate factual basis was found to justify penal action, so penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>