<?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>2009 (8) TMI 1024 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153480</link>
    <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2002-C.E. depended on proof that the factory was located in a rural area as defined by the notification, and the assessee bore the primary burden of establishing that statutory factual condition through competent revenue evidence. A certificate from a Zila Panchayat authority, without support from the relevant land revenue records, was insufficient by itself. Because the existing record did not conclusively establish either eligibility or exclusion from the rural-area definition, the matter was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication after both sides were allowed to produce appropriate evidence in accordance with law and natural justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:49:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1024 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153480</link>
      <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2002-C.E. depended on proof that the factory was located in a rural area as defined by the notification, and the assessee bore the primary burden of establishing that statutory factual condition through competent revenue evidence. A certificate from a Zila Panchayat authority, without support from the relevant land revenue records, was insufficient by itself. Because the existing record did not conclusively establish either eligibility or exclusion from the rural-area definition, the matter was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication after both sides were allowed to produce appropriate evidence in accordance with law and natural justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153480</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>