<?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 (12) TMI 329 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335684</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the assessee remained entitled to Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE, as amended, for clearances made to original equipment manufacturers, because the issue was already covered by a Supreme Court ruling in the assessee&#039;s own case. On that binding precedent, the contrary demand based on inclusion of those clearances in the aggregate value could not be sustained, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal therefore did not examine limitation or re-quantification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450824" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 329 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335684</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the assessee remained entitled to Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE, as amended, for clearances made to original equipment manufacturers, because the issue was already covered by a Supreme Court ruling in the assessee&#039;s own case. On that binding precedent, the contrary demand based on inclusion of those clearances in the aggregate value could not be sustained, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal therefore did not examine limitation or re-quantification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>