<?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>2008 (8) TMI 614 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124027</link>
    <description>Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 56/02-C.E. turned on whether the factory at Bari Brahmana fell within the notified area. The earlier denial rested on the Khasra number recorded for the unit, but demarcation by the Addl. Dy. Commissioner certified that the factory was operational at Khasra No. 1117, village Bari Brahmana, Tehsil Samba. That certificate removed the factual for exclusion, and the later appellate order had already extended the same notification benefit for the subsequent period on the same basis. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to the notification benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:02:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160984" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 614 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124027</link>
      <description>Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 56/02-C.E. turned on whether the factory at Bari Brahmana fell within the notified area. The earlier denial rested on the Khasra number recorded for the unit, but demarcation by the Addl. Dy. Commissioner certified that the factory was operational at Khasra No. 1117, village Bari Brahmana, Tehsil Samba. That certificate removed the factual for exclusion, and the later appellate order had already extended the same notification benefit for the subsequent period on the same basis. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to the notification benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124027</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>