<?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>2008 (8) TMI 129 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32116</link>
    <description>Area-based exemption for a new unit was linked to setting up the unit in the notified area and commencing commercial production by the stipulated date, not to manufacturing every finished product before that date. Corrugated boxes made after the cut-off date from corrugated sheets produced earlier on the same plant and machinery did not defeat eligibility, where no new machinery was installed after the cut-off date. A CBDT clarification supported the view that later production of additional products from the same plant and machinery would not by itself disqualify the unit from exemption. The benefit could not be denied on that ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70758" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 129 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32116</link>
      <description>Area-based exemption for a new unit was linked to setting up the unit in the notified area and commencing commercial production by the stipulated date, not to manufacturing every finished product before that date. Corrugated boxes made after the cut-off date from corrugated sheets produced earlier on the same plant and machinery did not defeat eligibility, where no new machinery was installed after the cut-off date. A CBDT clarification supported the view that later production of additional products from the same plant and machinery would not by itself disqualify the unit from exemption. The benefit could not be denied on that ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32116</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>