<?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 (12) TMI 992 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209492</link>
    <description>SSI exemption based on an earlier registration application was denied because the assessee failed to prove that the alleged provisional application was accepted or continued into the later permanent registration request. The operative registration date was therefore the date on which permanent registration was actually granted, not the earlier claimed date. On that factual basis, exemption was available only from the registration date and not retrospectively. The penalty for wrongful availment before entitlement was also upheld, as there was no reliable material to disturb the finding that the exemption had been taken prematurely.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 992 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209492</link>
      <description>SSI exemption based on an earlier registration application was denied because the assessee failed to prove that the alleged provisional application was accepted or continued into the later permanent registration request. The operative registration date was therefore the date on which permanent registration was actually granted, not the earlier claimed date. On that factual basis, exemption was available only from the registration date and not retrospectively. The penalty for wrongful availment before entitlement was also upheld, as there was no reliable material to disturb the finding that the exemption had been taken prematurely.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>