<?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 (2) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84494</link>
    <description>A prima facie case for SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86 supported waiver of pre-deposit where the second unit had been reflected in the approved classification list and the later SSI certificate endorsement covered both units. On that basis, exemption could not be denied merely because the second unit was separately located. The plea of limitation also had prima facie support, since part of the demand appeared to extend beyond six months and there was no strong indication of suppression of facts sufficient to defeat limitation at that stage. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were therefore justified pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:51:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84494</link>
      <description>A prima facie case for SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86 supported waiver of pre-deposit where the second unit had been reflected in the approved classification list and the later SSI certificate endorsement covered both units. On that basis, exemption could not be denied merely because the second unit was separately located. The plea of limitation also had prima facie support, since part of the demand appeared to extend beyond six months and there was no strong indication of suppression of facts sufficient to defeat limitation at that stage. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were therefore justified pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>