<?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 (11) TMI 324 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93188</link>
    <description>The exemption exclusion in Notification No. 175/86-C.E., as amended, applied only to units that were legally registered under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act with DGTD, not to units merely appearing on a DGTD list or obtaining statistical registration. The majority reasoned that the Act distinguishes statutory registration from licensing and from DGTD registration used for administrative or statistical purposes. A carry on business licence was treated as a licence under the Act, not DGTD registration. On that construction, the assessee remained entitled to the exemption benefit, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the proceedings failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:34:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 324 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93188</link>
      <description>The exemption exclusion in Notification No. 175/86-C.E., as amended, applied only to units that were legally registered under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act with DGTD, not to units merely appearing on a DGTD list or obtaining statistical registration. The majority reasoned that the Act distinguishes statutory registration from licensing and from DGTD registration used for administrative or statistical purposes. A carry on business licence was treated as a licence under the Act, not DGTD registration. On that construction, the assessee remained entitled to the exemption benefit, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the proceedings failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93188</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>