<?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>1998 (12) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89503</link>
    <description>The exemption under Notification No. 175/86 could not be denied merely because the brand name owner was questioned, where the District Industries Centre certificate showed that the owner was a small scale industrial unit. On that factual basis, the ground used to refuse relief was unsustainable, and the appellants remained entitled to the exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:30:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (12) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89503</link>
      <description>The exemption under Notification No. 175/86 could not be denied merely because the brand name owner was questioned, where the District Industries Centre certificate showed that the owner was a small scale industrial unit. On that factual basis, the ground used to refuse relief was unsustainable, and the appellants remained entitled to the exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>