<?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 (11) TMI 184 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84881</link>
    <description>A mere change in the unit&#039;s name, after approval by the competent authorities, did not alter the undertaking&#039;s identity or status, so SSI benefit could not be denied on that ground. On the admitted facts, no basis existed to justify invocation of the extended period of limitation for the demand. The demand was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 12:57:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (11) TMI 184 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84881</link>
      <description>A mere change in the unit&#039;s name, after approval by the competent authorities, did not alter the undertaking&#039;s identity or status, so SSI benefit could not be denied on that ground. On the admitted facts, no basis existed to justify invocation of the extended period of limitation for the demand. The demand was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84881</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>