<?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>1999 (4) TMI 644 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280827</link>
    <description>Small-scale industry exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. turned on whether a registration certificate issued later could relate back to the date of application or commencement of production. The majority view treated the exemption as intended for genuine small-scale units and held that belated issuance by the Industries Department should not defeat relief where registration had been applied for and the certificate confirmed the unit&#039;s status; the exemption was therefore available from the date of application, and demand, confiscation and penalty were unsustainable. The dissent held that actual registration was a condition precedent and that the certificate could not operate retrospectively.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2019 17:57:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=572262" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 644 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280827</link>
      <description>Small-scale industry exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. turned on whether a registration certificate issued later could relate back to the date of application or commencement of production. The majority view treated the exemption as intended for genuine small-scale units and held that belated issuance by the Industries Department should not defeat relief where registration had been applied for and the certificate confirmed the unit&#039;s status; the exemption was therefore available from the date of application, and demand, confiscation and penalty were unsustainable. The dissent held that actual registration was a condition precedent and that the certificate could not operate retrospectively.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>