<?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 (2) TMI 821 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339121</link>
    <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-CE could not be denied solely because the assessee failed to file the written option or declaration, where substantive eligibility was otherwise undisputed and the necessary particulars were already available with the department. The omission was treated as a procedural lapse, not a ground to defeat a substantial exemption when the underlying conditions for entitlement were satisfied. A Revenue precedent was distinguished because it arose under a different notification and statutory setting. The assessee was therefore entitled to the SSI exemption despite non-filing of the option letter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2017 00:41:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 821 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339121</link>
      <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-CE could not be denied solely because the assessee failed to file the written option or declaration, where substantive eligibility was otherwise undisputed and the necessary particulars were already available with the department. The omission was treated as a procedural lapse, not a ground to defeat a substantial exemption when the underlying conditions for entitlement were satisfied. A Revenue precedent was distinguished because it arose under a different notification and statutory setting. The assessee was therefore entitled to the SSI exemption despite non-filing of the option letter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339121</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>