<?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>2000 (8) TMI 474 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94032</link>
    <description>Small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was available where the manufacturer&#039;s clearances and investment in plant and machinery remained within the prescribed limits, and non-registration as an SSI unit did not defeat the benefit if the notification&#039;s conditions were otherwise met; the assessee was therefore entitled to exemption. The duty demand also failed on limitation because the assessee had disclosed its manufacturing activities to the Department before the show cause period, so suppression of facts was not established and the extended period could not be invoked. On both merits and limitation, relief followed for the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:31:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 474 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94032</link>
      <description>Small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was available where the manufacturer&#039;s clearances and investment in plant and machinery remained within the prescribed limits, and non-registration as an SSI unit did not defeat the benefit if the notification&#039;s conditions were otherwise met; the assessee was therefore entitled to exemption. The duty demand also failed on limitation because the assessee had disclosed its manufacturing activities to the Department before the show cause period, so suppression of facts was not established and the extended period could not be invoked. On both merits and limitation, relief followed for the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94032</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>