<?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>2003 (1) TMI 495 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107452</link>
    <description>Notification No. 33/99-C.E. allowed exemption to existing manufacturing units in the North-East Region where the units achieved an overall 25% increase in installed capacity. The finding that the respondents&#039; installed capacity had increased by 25% was supported by production figures and other material accepted by the Commissioner, and the Revenue produced no rebuttal. The notification required an overall increase in installed capacity; it did not require each wing or section of the factory to show a separate 25% increase. On that basis, the exemption was available to the respondents and the Revenue&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:06:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144469" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 495 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107452</link>
      <description>Notification No. 33/99-C.E. allowed exemption to existing manufacturing units in the North-East Region where the units achieved an overall 25% increase in installed capacity. The finding that the respondents&#039; installed capacity had increased by 25% was supported by production figures and other material accepted by the Commissioner, and the Revenue produced no rebuttal. The notification required an overall increase in installed capacity; it did not require each wing or section of the factory to show a separate 25% increase. On that basis, the exemption was available to the respondents and the Revenue&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>