<?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>2010 (9) TMI 456 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203279</link>
    <description>Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was construed as granting the small-scale industry exemption to the manufacturer as a whole, even where goods were produced from more than one factory. Where the manufacturer had elected to pay duty at the normal rate for one unit, that option could not be selectively disregarded for another unit manufacturing the same goods. The exemption claimed for the second unit was therefore not available, and the demand and penalty were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 09:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176842" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 456 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203279</link>
      <description>Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was construed as granting the small-scale industry exemption to the manufacturer as a whole, even where goods were produced from more than one factory. Where the manufacturer had elected to pay duty at the normal rate for one unit, that option could not be selectively disregarded for another unit manufacturing the same goods. The exemption claimed for the second unit was therefore not available, and the demand and penalty were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203279</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>