<?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>1995 (7) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84320</link>
    <description>A concessional cement duty exemption under Notification No. 124/87-C.E. applied only to cement manufactured in a factory that commenced production during the specified period. Conversion of an existing cement plant from the wet process to the dry process was treated as modernisation and expansion of the old unit, not the setting up of a physically separate and identifiable new factory. The record showed continuity of the original factory, with no new excise or factory licence and no independent new unit coming into existence. The claim for exemption therefore failed because the assessee had not proved that the plant fell within the strict terms of the notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:18:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121464" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (7) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84320</link>
      <description>A concessional cement duty exemption under Notification No. 124/87-C.E. applied only to cement manufactured in a factory that commenced production during the specified period. Conversion of an existing cement plant from the wet process to the dry process was treated as modernisation and expansion of the old unit, not the setting up of a physically separate and identifiable new factory. The record showed continuity of the original factory, with no new excise or factory licence and no independent new unit coming into existence. The claim for exemption therefore failed because the assessee had not proved that the plant fell within the strict terms of the notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84320</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>