<?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>2006 (5) TMI 497 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179024</link>
    <description>Compelled compliance with an adjudication order requiring duty payment at the full rate was not treated as a voluntary violation of the SSI exemption conditions. The Tribunal found that the assessee&#039;s movement into the MODVAT scheme was not a deliberate opt-out while clearances remained below the prescribed limit, and the High Court found no perversity in that factual conclusion. On that basis, no substantial question of law arose, and denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 16/97-CE was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 May 2016 18:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 497 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179024</link>
      <description>Compelled compliance with an adjudication order requiring duty payment at the full rate was not treated as a voluntary violation of the SSI exemption conditions. The Tribunal found that the assessee&#039;s movement into the MODVAT scheme was not a deliberate opt-out while clearances remained below the prescribed limit, and the High Court found no perversity in that factual conclusion. On that basis, no substantial question of law arose, and denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 16/97-CE was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>