<?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>2004 (6) TMI 414 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112151</link>
    <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was treated as attaching to the status of the manufacturer, not to a single factory location. Shifting the factory to new did not by itself extinguish the exemption, and the absence of registration at the new site could not defeat the benefit where the substantive SSI conditions were satisfied. Clearances from the assessee&#039;s different premises were to be clubbed for the relevant years, and the record did not show that the ceiling was crossed in a manner warranting denial. The denial of SSI exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee remained entitled to the benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:55:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149167" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 414 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112151</link>
      <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was treated as attaching to the status of the manufacturer, not to a single factory location. Shifting the factory to new did not by itself extinguish the exemption, and the absence of registration at the new site could not defeat the benefit where the substantive SSI conditions were satisfied. Clearances from the assessee&#039;s different premises were to be clubbed for the relevant years, and the record did not show that the ceiling was crossed in a manner warranting denial. The denial of SSI exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee remained entitled to the benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112151</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>