<?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>2009 (8) TMI 438 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76101</link>
    <description>Eligibility for small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. turned on whether the unit was in a rural area during the relevant period. On the evidence accepted in the original proceedings, the unit was situated in Nava Odhav Gram Panchayat and the later municipal transition did not displace its rural character for the period in dispute, so use of the buyer&#039;s brand name did not defeat the exemption. The Revenue&#039;s reliance on a development-oriented notification was insufficient to prove that Nava Odhav was an urban area for exemption purposes. The denial of exemption was set aside and the original dropping of proceedings was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114323" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 438 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76101</link>
      <description>Eligibility for small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. turned on whether the unit was in a rural area during the relevant period. On the evidence accepted in the original proceedings, the unit was situated in Nava Odhav Gram Panchayat and the later municipal transition did not displace its rural character for the period in dispute, so use of the buyer&#039;s brand name did not defeat the exemption. The Revenue&#039;s reliance on a development-oriented notification was insufficient to prove that Nava Odhav was an urban area for exemption purposes. The denial of exemption was set aside and the original dropping of proceedings was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76101</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>