https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271091 A revenue appeal was found not maintainable because the authorization had not been approved by the required Committee of Commissioners, as only one Commissioner had signed. On the exemption issue, the unit was held entitled to area-based relief under Notification No. 50/2003-CE because it fell within the notified industrial area throughout the relevant period. The later amendment correcting the village description was treated as clarificatory, not as creating a new benefit from the amendment date, so exemption could not be denied for the pre-amendment period. en-us Wed, 18 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Jan 2016 18:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271091 A revenue appeal was found not maintainable because the authorization had not been approved by the required Committee of Commissioners, as only one Commissioner had signed. On the exemption issue, the unit was held entitled to area-based relief under Notification No. 50/2003-CE because it fell within the notified industrial area throughout the relevant period. The later amendment correcting the village description was treated as clarificatory, not as creating a new benefit from the amendment date, so exemption could not be denied for the pre-amendment period. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271091