<?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 (2) TMI 337 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS &amp; CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94394</link>
    <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 depends on whether a later unit is a genuine independent manufacturer or only a continuation of the earlier concern. Where the earlier business had closed, surrendered registration and sold the unit, and the new proprietary unit obtained fresh excise, sales tax and income-tax registrations and commenced production in its own right, the earlier clearances could not be clubbed against it. On those facts, the exemption could not be denied merely because both units operated from the same premises. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and the exemption benefit was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2011 12:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 337 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS &amp; CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94394</link>
      <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 depends on whether a later unit is a genuine independent manufacturer or only a continuation of the earlier concern. Where the earlier business had closed, surrendered registration and sold the unit, and the new proprietary unit obtained fresh excise, sales tax and income-tax registrations and commenced production in its own right, the earlier clearances could not be clubbed against it. On those facts, the exemption could not be denied merely because both units operated from the same premises. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and the exemption benefit was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>