<?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 (12) TMI 448 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94664</link>
    <description>Small scale industries exemption was examined in relation to products not separately covered by registration endorsements, with the Tribunal noting that SSI benefit need not fail solely for that reason. On the facts, it granted conditional pre-deposit relief: one unit was directed to deposit Rs. 1 lakh within eight weeks, after which the balance duty and penalty pre-deposit stood waived. For another unit, the Tribunal found a prima facie case for SSI benefit and stayed recovery while waiving pre-deposit of duty and equivalent penalty pending adjudication. It also waived a penalty under section 209A, finding the stated basis for liability insufficient.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:04:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131723" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (12) TMI 448 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94664</link>
      <description>Small scale industries exemption was examined in relation to products not separately covered by registration endorsements, with the Tribunal noting that SSI benefit need not fail solely for that reason. On the facts, it granted conditional pre-deposit relief: one unit was directed to deposit Rs. 1 lakh within eight weeks, after which the balance duty and penalty pre-deposit stood waived. For another unit, the Tribunal found a prima facie case for SSI benefit and stayed recovery while waiving pre-deposit of duty and equivalent penalty pending adjudication. It also waived a penalty under section 209A, finding the stated basis for liability insufficient.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>