<?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 507 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94896</link>
    <description>Notification No. 24/91-C.E. treated a post-de-licensing cement factory using a rotary kiln as falling within the category of factories not required to obtain an industrial licence, so the licence-based capacity condition could not be imported from the other category. The installed capacity and the relevant post-notification clearances remained within the prescribed ceiling, so the exemption was available. The third proviso could not be invoked on the basis of clearances made in financial years before the notification, because only clearances during the relevant period were material. Appeals succeeded and the denial of exemption, duty demand, and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:43:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131955" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 507 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94896</link>
      <description>Notification No. 24/91-C.E. treated a post-de-licensing cement factory using a rotary kiln as falling within the category of factories not required to obtain an industrial licence, so the licence-based capacity condition could not be imported from the other category. The installed capacity and the relevant post-notification clearances remained within the prescribed ceiling, so the exemption was available. The third proviso could not be invoked on the basis of clearances made in financial years before the notification, because only clearances during the relevant period were material. Appeals succeeded and the denial of exemption, duty demand, and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94896</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>