<?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 (11) TMI 18 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350139</link>
    <description>Area-based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE was confined to new units set up in the specified area and commissioned before the cut-off date. Where an existing unit is effectively replaced after that date by fresh machinery on the same land and building, and the new undertaking manufactures a different product, the successor cannot claim continuation of the original exemption. The facts showed that only the land and building remained, while the earlier unit had ceased in substance and a new unit came into existence after the cut-off date. On that basis, the exemption was held unavailable and the denial of benefit was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494235" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 18 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350139</link>
      <description>Area-based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE was confined to new units set up in the specified area and commissioned before the cut-off date. Where an existing unit is effectively replaced after that date by fresh machinery on the same land and building, and the new undertaking manufactures a different product, the successor cannot claim continuation of the original exemption. The facts showed that only the land and building remained, while the earlier unit had ceased in substance and a new unit came into existence after the cut-off date. On that basis, the exemption was held unavailable and the denial of benefit was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350139</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>