<?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>1999 (9) TMI 246 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92424</link>
    <description>Where an assessee had already applied for Small Scale Industry registration and the authorities delayed issuance of the certificate, exemption under Notification No. 175/86 as amended by Notification No. 244/87 was available from the date eligibility arose under the revised investment limit, not merely from the date of formal registration. The revised Ministry of Industry policy raised the SSI investment ceiling to Rs. 35 lakhs, and the delay in certification was attributable to the authorities. The later grant of registration on the same policy basis could not be used to defeat substantive eligibility, so the exemption remained admissible and the demand could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:39:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129485" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 246 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92424</link>
      <description>Where an assessee had already applied for Small Scale Industry registration and the authorities delayed issuance of the certificate, exemption under Notification No. 175/86 as amended by Notification No. 244/87 was available from the date eligibility arose under the revised investment limit, not merely from the date of formal registration. The revised Ministry of Industry policy raised the SSI investment ceiling to Rs. 35 lakhs, and the delay in certification was attributable to the authorities. The later grant of registration on the same policy basis could not be used to defeat substantive eligibility, so the exemption remained admissible and the demand could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92424</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>