<?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 (7) TMI 543 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109563</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was examined against the claim that a provisional small-scale industry certificate and excess investment in plant and machinery defeated eligibility. The notification was read as not importing any maximum investment limit into excise administration, and the State recognition criteria were treated as distinct from the exemption conditions. On limitation, the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was held unavailable because the relevant classification lists had been approved and the department had been informed of the absence of final small-scale status. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:47:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 543 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109563</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was examined against the claim that a provisional small-scale industry certificate and excess investment in plant and machinery defeated eligibility. The notification was read as not importing any maximum investment limit into excise administration, and the State recognition criteria were treated as distinct from the exemption conditions. On limitation, the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was held unavailable because the relevant classification lists had been approved and the department had been informed of the absence of final small-scale status. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109563</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>