<?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 (4) TMI 300 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222104</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 88/88-C.E. was available only where goods were manufactured in a rural area by an institution specifically recognised by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission or a similar body. The rural-area condition was not in dispute, but the petitioner&#039;s unit at Iyava, Sanand was not included in the location-specific centres covered by the recognition certificate. The certificate was treated as conditional and unit-specific, and concurrent findings of the adjudicating authority and Tribunal held that the recognition did not extend to that unit. The exemption claim therefore failed, and the duty demand and confiscation were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195453" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 300 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222104</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 88/88-C.E. was available only where goods were manufactured in a rural area by an institution specifically recognised by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission or a similar body. The rural-area condition was not in dispute, but the petitioner&#039;s unit at Iyava, Sanand was not included in the location-specific centres covered by the recognition certificate. The certificate was treated as conditional and unit-specific, and concurrent findings of the adjudicating authority and Tribunal held that the recognition did not extend to that unit. The exemption claim therefore failed, and the duty demand and confiscation were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222104</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>