<?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>1997 (2) TMI 328 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91064</link>
    <description>For small-scale cement units claiming concessional excise under Notification No. 36/87-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 36/88-C.E., an installed capacity certificate issued by the competent State authority was sufficient where no formal licensed capacity was required. The notification linked eligibility to production of not less than 30% of the annual licensed capacity certified by the prescribed authority, but the competent authority could certify only installed capacity for such units. Administrative clarification from the Development Commissioner for Cement Industries and the Board supported acceptance of installed-capacity certificates for determining eligibility, so the exemption remained available and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:35:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (2) TMI 328 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91064</link>
      <description>For small-scale cement units claiming concessional excise under Notification No. 36/87-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 36/88-C.E., an installed capacity certificate issued by the competent State authority was sufficient where no formal licensed capacity was required. The notification linked eligibility to production of not less than 30% of the annual licensed capacity certified by the prescribed authority, but the competent authority could certify only installed capacity for such units. Administrative clarification from the Development Commissioner for Cement Industries and the Board supported acceptance of installed-capacity certificates for determining eligibility, so the exemption remained available and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>