https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340500 Area-based excise exemption was confined to units located in the designated backward area covered by Notification No. 50/2003-CE, and once the relevant Khasra number was deleted by Notification No. 27/2005, the unit ceased to qualify from the date of amendment. The Tribunal held that entitlement had to be tested strictly against the governing notification, and promissory estoppel could not extend a tax exemption beyond the statutory notification. The excise duty demand was therefore upheld, along with the related treatment of Cenvat credit. en-us Tue, 07 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340500 Area-based excise exemption was confined to units located in the designated backward area covered by Notification No. 50/2003-CE, and once the relevant Khasra number was deleted by Notification No. 27/2005, the unit ceased to qualify from the date of amendment. The Tribunal held that entitlement had to be tested strictly against the governing notification, and promissory estoppel could not extend a tax exemption beyond the statutory notification. The excise duty demand was therefore upheld, along with the related treatment of Cenvat credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340500