<?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>2002 (12) TMI 422 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107163</link>
    <description>A loan licencee manufacturing pharmaceutical products in another manufacturer&#039;s factory, without owning an independent unit, was treated as eligible for small scale exemption under the successor notification because the governing exemption had to be read consistently with the settled position under the earlier notification and the applicable precedent did not require factory ownership. In remand, the authorities could not depart from the interpretation already adopted by the appellate remand order on the same issue. The contrary view taken in remand was therefore impermissible, the duty demand was set aside, and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:55:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144182" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 422 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107163</link>
      <description>A loan licencee manufacturing pharmaceutical products in another manufacturer&#039;s factory, without owning an independent unit, was treated as eligible for small scale exemption under the successor notification because the governing exemption had to be read consistently with the settled position under the earlier notification and the applicable precedent did not require factory ownership. In remand, the authorities could not depart from the interpretation already adopted by the appellate remand order on the same issue. The contrary view taken in remand was therefore impermissible, the duty demand was set aside, and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107163</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>