<?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 (10) TMI 622 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265347</link>
    <description>Industrial exemption under Notification No. 50/03-C.E. was available because the factory site fell within the notified industrial area, and the later amendment only clarified the village description. The conductor division qualified as a new industrial unit since trial production was distinct from commercial production, and regular production began after 7 January 2003. The LPG cylinder division also qualified independently on substantial expansion, as exemption was unit-specific and the absence of expansion in the conductor division did not bar relief. The denial of exemption, duty, interest, and penalties was therefore not sustained, and the appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2016 10:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400804" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 622 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265347</link>
      <description>Industrial exemption under Notification No. 50/03-C.E. was available because the factory site fell within the notified industrial area, and the later amendment only clarified the village description. The conductor division qualified as a new industrial unit since trial production was distinct from commercial production, and regular production began after 7 January 2003. The LPG cylinder division also qualified independently on substantial expansion, as exemption was unit-specific and the absence of expansion in the conductor division did not bar relief. The denial of exemption, duty, interest, and penalties was therefore not sustained, and the appeals were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265347</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>