<?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>2023 (4) TMI 257 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436231</link>
    <description>Eligibility for the time-bound exemption under Notification No. 20/2007-CE depended on proof that the unit was a genuinely fresh industrial unit that had commenced commercial production within the notified period. Contemporaneous records supported this finding: machinery and raw materials were procured from 2016, machinery was installed before 31.03.2017, the Department was intimated on 31.03.2017, a commercial production certificate was issued, duty was paid on initial clearances, and ER-1 returns reflected production and clearance. The absence of evidence on one input was insufficient to overcome those documents, and shared premises or common partners with an earlier concern did not by itself negate new-unit status. The exemption was therefore available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Apr 2023 13:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=710122" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (4) TMI 257 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436231</link>
      <description>Eligibility for the time-bound exemption under Notification No. 20/2007-CE depended on proof that the unit was a genuinely fresh industrial unit that had commenced commercial production within the notified period. Contemporaneous records supported this finding: machinery and raw materials were procured from 2016, machinery was installed before 31.03.2017, the Department was intimated on 31.03.2017, a commercial production certificate was issued, duty was paid on initial clearances, and ER-1 returns reflected production and clearance. The absence of evidence on one input was insufficient to overcome those documents, and shared premises or common partners with an earlier concern did not by itself negate new-unit status. The exemption was therefore available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436231</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>