<?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>1996 (8) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85571</link>
    <description>A duly registered small scale industrial unit, including an ancillary unit, was treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E.; higher investment in plant and machinery was not, by itself, a disqualifying factor where the registration certificate identified the unit as SSI. The notification was read to include ancillary units within small scale industries for exemption purposes, and departmental registration could not be ignored. On limitation, disclosure of the SSI certificate, investment figures and regular assessment of returns meant suppression was not established, so the extended period of recovery was unavailable. On those facts, demand and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:17:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85571</link>
      <description>A duly registered small scale industrial unit, including an ancillary unit, was treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E.; higher investment in plant and machinery was not, by itself, a disqualifying factor where the registration certificate identified the unit as SSI. The notification was read to include ancillary units within small scale industries for exemption purposes, and departmental registration could not be ignored. On limitation, disclosure of the SSI certificate, investment figures and regular assessment of returns meant suppression was not established, so the extended period of recovery was unavailable. On those facts, demand and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>