<?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 (1) TMI 382 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94540</link>
    <description>A small-scale unit with provisional SSI registration was treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for 1988-89, and the proviso extended that benefit to the following year because the manufacturer had availed exemption in the preceding financial year. Eligibility was not defeated by shifting the factory to a new address within the same city, since exemption turns on the manufacturer&#039;s entitlement and not merely on a fresh classification list. The approved classification list for 1989-90 and endorsement of the new address on the L-4 licence also supported continuity of the exemption. The duty demand and denial of exemption were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:24:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 382 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94540</link>
      <description>A small-scale unit with provisional SSI registration was treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for 1988-89, and the proviso extended that benefit to the following year because the manufacturer had availed exemption in the preceding financial year. Eligibility was not defeated by shifting the factory to a new address within the same city, since exemption turns on the manufacturer&#039;s entitlement and not merely on a fresh classification list. The approved classification list for 1989-90 and endorsement of the new address on the L-4 licence also supported continuity of the exemption. The duty demand and denial of exemption were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94540</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>