<?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>2015 (4) TMI 568 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258686</link>
    <description>For existing industrial units claiming excise exemption under North East notifications, eligibility depended on when substantial expansion of at least twenty-five per cent was undertaken on or after the stipulated cut-off date, not on the later commencement of commercial production after expansion. The notification drew a distinction between new units, for whom commercial production was relevant, and existing units, for whom the operative date was the undertaking or completion of expansion. On the stated facts, the expansion machinery had been installed before the cut-off date, so the exemption was unavailable and denial of the benefit to the existing unit was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2015 16:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382009" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 568 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258686</link>
      <description>For existing industrial units claiming excise exemption under North East notifications, eligibility depended on when substantial expansion of at least twenty-five per cent was undertaken on or after the stipulated cut-off date, not on the later commencement of commercial production after expansion. The notification drew a distinction between new units, for whom commercial production was relevant, and existing units, for whom the operative date was the undertaking or completion of expansion. On the stated facts, the expansion machinery had been installed before the cut-off date, so the exemption was unavailable and denial of the benefit to the existing unit was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258686</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>