<?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>2002 (11) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753</link>
    <description>An exemption notification aimed at promoting industrial investment in the North-Eastern region was construed contextually and, where its language allowed, liberally. Because the notification did not define &quot;new industrial unit&quot; or exclude transferred units, and there was no evidence that machinery, accessories, components or labour from the earlier unit had been shifted to the Amingaon site, the later unit was treated as a fresh industrial unit. Mere correspondence seeking continuity of the earlier industrial licence did not establish relocation of an old unit. The Amingaon unit therefore qualified for the exemption, and the departmental appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753</link>
      <description>An exemption notification aimed at promoting industrial investment in the North-Eastern region was construed contextually and, where its language allowed, liberally. Because the notification did not define &quot;new industrial unit&quot; or exclude transferred units, and there was no evidence that machinery, accessories, components or labour from the earlier unit had been shifted to the Amingaon site, the later unit was treated as a fresh industrial unit. Mere correspondence seeking continuity of the earlier industrial licence did not establish relocation of an old unit. The Amingaon unit therefore qualified for the exemption, and the departmental appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>