<?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 (9) TMI 896 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108147</link>
    <description>Notification No. 24/91 required a certificate of installed production capacity for a cement unit to claim concessional exemption. The certificate requirement was treated as satisfied where the certificate ultimately emanated from the Director of Industries or the Director&#039;s office, including a fresh certificate replacing an earlier countersigned version. Delayed production of the certificate was not fatal when it covered the relevant period and quantity, and substantive exemption could not be denied on that procedural ground. A certificate signed by a subordinate officer functioning in the Director&#039;s office, in the Director&#039;s absence, was also not treated as defeating the benefit where the office&#039;s authority was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:54:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145164" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 896 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108147</link>
      <description>Notification No. 24/91 required a certificate of installed production capacity for a cement unit to claim concessional exemption. The certificate requirement was treated as satisfied where the certificate ultimately emanated from the Director of Industries or the Director&#039;s office, including a fresh certificate replacing an earlier countersigned version. Delayed production of the certificate was not fatal when it covered the relevant period and quantity, and substantive exemption could not be denied on that procedural ground. A certificate signed by a subordinate officer functioning in the Director&#039;s office, in the Director&#039;s absence, was also not treated as defeating the benefit where the office&#039;s authority was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108147</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>