<?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 (8) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82452</link>
    <description>Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 36/87-C.E. depended on whether the cement unit was a factory that commenced production after 1-4-1986 and was physically and functionally independent of the old unit. The material showed separate limestone crushers, separate kilns, an independent factory licence, a separate power supply agreement, and Development Commissioner recognition as a new stream of production. The conveyor belt ran from the new unit to the old unit, and the absence of a separate railway siding was not decisive because the test was independent manufacture of cement, not the existence of that siding. On these facts, the unit was treated as eligible for exemption and inter-dependence objections were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 12:08:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119597" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (8) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82452</link>
      <description>Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 36/87-C.E. depended on whether the cement unit was a factory that commenced production after 1-4-1986 and was physically and functionally independent of the old unit. The material showed separate limestone crushers, separate kilns, an independent factory licence, a separate power supply agreement, and Development Commissioner recognition as a new stream of production. The conveyor belt ran from the new unit to the old unit, and the absence of a separate railway siding was not decisive because the test was independent manufacture of cement, not the existence of that siding. On these facts, the unit was treated as eligible for exemption and inter-dependence objections were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>