<?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>2016 (1) TMI 845 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271053</link>
    <description>The case revolved around the appellant&#039;s entitlement to the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, focusing on the exclusion of certain turnover from the aggregate clearance. The appellant operated two units, one manufacturing dutiable goods and the other producing branded printed materials. The Tribunal&#039;s decision supported excluding turnover related to deemed exports for SSI exemption computation. The appellant&#039;s utilization of cenvatable inputs for dutiable goods and the dispute over the extended limitation period added complexity. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication without penalty, emphasizing a detailed reconsideration of the issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414119" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 845 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271053</link>
      <description>The case revolved around the appellant&#039;s entitlement to the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, focusing on the exclusion of certain turnover from the aggregate clearance. The appellant operated two units, one manufacturing dutiable goods and the other producing branded printed materials. The Tribunal&#039;s decision supported excluding turnover related to deemed exports for SSI exemption computation. The appellant&#039;s utilization of cenvatable inputs for dutiable goods and the dispute over the extended limitation period added complexity. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication without penalty, emphasizing a detailed reconsideration of the issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271053</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>