<?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 (10) TMI 382 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333362</link>
    <description>An eligible industrial unit does not lose area based exemption merely because it is transferred to a new owner, shifted to another premises within the exempted area, or begins manufacturing an additional product, if the original eligible manufacturing activity continues and the governing notification or circulars do not prohibit such changes. The accepted engineer&#039;s certificate and transfer of capital goods supported the conclusion that the unit remained eligible after relocation. The Board circulars were read as permitting alteration of plant and machinery, change in ownership, and continuation of exemption for the balance period. On that basis, denial of the exemption was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Aug 2017 15:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444419" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 382 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333362</link>
      <description>An eligible industrial unit does not lose area based exemption merely because it is transferred to a new owner, shifted to another premises within the exempted area, or begins manufacturing an additional product, if the original eligible manufacturing activity continues and the governing notification or circulars do not prohibit such changes. The accepted engineer&#039;s certificate and transfer of capital goods supported the conclusion that the unit remained eligible after relocation. The Board circulars were read as permitting alteration of plant and machinery, change in ownership, and continuation of exemption for the balance period. On that basis, denial of the exemption was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333362</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>