<?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>2013 (1) TMI 499 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220394</link>
    <description>Where an SSI exemption notification requires clearances from one or more factories of the same manufacturer to be aggregated, the exemption slabs must be applied on the combined value of clearances from all such units. Separate treatment of each factory was therefore not permissible, and the assessee was not entitled to claim the exemption slab independently for each unit. On penalty, once an equal penalty had already been imposed under the principal penal provision for the same default, a further penalty under Rule 173Q was unwarranted and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 06:20:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193760" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 499 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220394</link>
      <description>Where an SSI exemption notification requires clearances from one or more factories of the same manufacturer to be aggregated, the exemption slabs must be applied on the combined value of clearances from all such units. Separate treatment of each factory was therefore not permissible, and the assessee was not entitled to claim the exemption slab independently for each unit. On penalty, once an equal penalty had already been imposed under the principal penal provision for the same default, a further penalty under Rule 173Q was unwarranted and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>