<?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>2020 (3) TMI 840 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393696</link>
    <description>Area based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE was available for the expanded units at Khasra No. 115 and Plot B of Khasra No. 119, as they were successors to earlier eligible units and the expansion fell within the scheme for adjoining land and new machinery. The expanded premises were also treated as part of the same industrial unit because the Board circulars contemplated a merged, contiguous setup with common access, and the facts showed one functional complex without practical separation. Once exemption was upheld, the basis for demand, seizure, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties failed, so those actions were not sustainable and consequential benefits followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Mar 2020 11:06:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=607599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 840 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393696</link>
      <description>Area based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE was available for the expanded units at Khasra No. 115 and Plot B of Khasra No. 119, as they were successors to earlier eligible units and the expansion fell within the scheme for adjoining land and new machinery. The expanded premises were also treated as part of the same industrial unit because the Board circulars contemplated a merged, contiguous setup with common access, and the facts showed one functional complex without practical separation. Once exemption was upheld, the basis for demand, seizure, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties failed, so those actions were not sustainable and consequential benefits followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393696</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>