<?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>2017 (1) TMI 597 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337517</link>
    <description>SSI exemption eligibility under Notification No. 8/2003-CE had to be tested by computing the aggregate value of clearances on manufactured goods only, because the exemption applies to manufacture and not trading activity. Since the limit was crossed only by adding traded goods, exclusion of those values kept the aggregate within the prescribed threshold, and denial of exemption on that basis was not justified. The appellant was therefore entitled to the exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 07:21:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454923" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 597 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337517</link>
      <description>SSI exemption eligibility under Notification No. 8/2003-CE had to be tested by computing the aggregate value of clearances on manufactured goods only, because the exemption applies to manufacture and not trading activity. Since the limit was crossed only by adding traded goods, exclusion of those values kept the aggregate within the prescribed threshold, and denial of exemption on that basis was not justified. The appellant was therefore entitled to the exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337517</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>