<?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>1992 (9) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82086</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 43/82-C.E. depended on whether the leased premises were proved to be the same factory unit previously used by M/s. Allvee Dye Chemicals, because Clause 2(ii) permitted clubbing only where clearances from the same factory by or on behalf of one or more manufacturers exceeded the prescribed limit in the preceding financial year. In the absence of a lease deed, approved ground plan, or other evidence showing that the exact portion earlier occupied had been transferred and continued as the same factory, clubbing of prior clearances was not sustainable. The respondents were therefore entitled to the exemption, and denial based on the earlier clearances was unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:58:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (9) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82086</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 43/82-C.E. depended on whether the leased premises were proved to be the same factory unit previously used by M/s. Allvee Dye Chemicals, because Clause 2(ii) permitted clubbing only where clearances from the same factory by or on behalf of one or more manufacturers exceeded the prescribed limit in the preceding financial year. In the absence of a lease deed, approved ground plan, or other evidence showing that the exact portion earlier occupied had been transferred and continued as the same factory, clubbing of prior clearances was not sustainable. The respondents were therefore entitled to the exemption, and denial based on the earlier clearances was unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82086</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>