<?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 (5) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89541</link>
    <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was available despite the absence of permanent registration during the relevant period, because the unit had obtained provisional registration and later secured permanent registration. The denial of exemption solely on the ground that permanent registration had not been issued at the relevant time was not sustained. The notification&#039;s proviso also provided that the registration requirement would not apply where the assessee had already availed the notification in the previous year, and that condition was satisfied. On that basis, the appellant was held entitled to the SSI exemption for the period in question.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:51:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126603" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (5) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89541</link>
      <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was available despite the absence of permanent registration during the relevant period, because the unit had obtained provisional registration and later secured permanent registration. The denial of exemption solely on the ground that permanent registration had not been issued at the relevant time was not sustained. The notification&#039;s proviso also provided that the registration requirement would not apply where the assessee had already availed the notification in the previous year, and that condition was satisfied. On that basis, the appellant was held entitled to the SSI exemption for the period in question.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89541</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>