<?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 630 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124153</link>
    <description>Area-based exemption under Notification No. 39/2001-C.E. remained available where a unit had commenced commercial production before the cut-off date and later produced corrugated sheets using the same pre-existing plant and machinery. The exemption was linked to establishment of the unit and timely commencement of production, not to every individual product cleared thereafter. The fact that corrugation occurred after 31-12-2005 did not by itself disqualify the goods, and the Board clarification supported continued benefit for additional products made without any post-cut-off addition to plant or machinery. The denial of refund was therefore rejected and the assessee retained the exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161110" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 630 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124153</link>
      <description>Area-based exemption under Notification No. 39/2001-C.E. remained available where a unit had commenced commercial production before the cut-off date and later produced corrugated sheets using the same pre-existing plant and machinery. The exemption was linked to establishment of the unit and timely commencement of production, not to every individual product cleared thereafter. The fact that corrugation occurred after 31-12-2005 did not by itself disqualify the goods, and the Board clarification supported continued benefit for additional products made without any post-cut-off addition to plant or machinery. The denial of refund was therefore rejected and the assessee retained the exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>