<?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>2018 (2) TMI 552 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355131</link>
    <description>The tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal in a case concerning the interpretation of excise duty notifications for specified goods. The appellant, within the SSI exemption limit, was manufacturing Lay Flat Tubings (LFT) for plastic bag production. The tribunal aligned with a Supreme Court ruling, excluding the value of exempted finished goods in the aggregate value calculation for exemption. Inputs used for manufacturing exempted finished goods were not to be considered, preventing double counting and providing relief to small-scale industries. As a result, the department&#039;s order was not upheld, and the appellant&#039;s appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2018 07:30:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508408" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 552 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355131</link>
      <description>The tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal in a case concerning the interpretation of excise duty notifications for specified goods. The appellant, within the SSI exemption limit, was manufacturing Lay Flat Tubings (LFT) for plastic bag production. The tribunal aligned with a Supreme Court ruling, excluding the value of exempted finished goods in the aggregate value calculation for exemption. Inputs used for manufacturing exempted finished goods were not to be considered, preventing double counting and providing relief to small-scale industries. As a result, the department&#039;s order was not upheld, and the appellant&#039;s appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355131</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>