<?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>2024 (11) TMI 54 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761068</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal challenging CESTAT&#039;s decision granting exemption benefits to a plywood manufacturer under Notification dated 25.04.2007. The respondent company operated a wood-based plywood industry at the same location before a court-imposed ban, but later established operations with fresh licensing after the ban was lifted. The HC upheld CESTAT&#039;s finding that the respondent had established a new industrial unit rather than merely renovating the old factory, based on factual evidence including site inspection and documentation. The revenue failed to produce contrary evidence to challenge the concurrent findings of the Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner (Appeals), and CESTAT that commercial production commenced after 01.04.2007, making the unit eligible for new industry exemption benefits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2024 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=776440" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 54 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761068</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal challenging CESTAT&#039;s decision granting exemption benefits to a plywood manufacturer under Notification dated 25.04.2007. The respondent company operated a wood-based plywood industry at the same location before a court-imposed ban, but later established operations with fresh licensing after the ban was lifted. The HC upheld CESTAT&#039;s finding that the respondent had established a new industrial unit rather than merely renovating the old factory, based on factual evidence including site inspection and documentation. The revenue failed to produce contrary evidence to challenge the concurrent findings of the Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner (Appeals), and CESTAT that commercial production commenced after 01.04.2007, making the unit eligible for new industry exemption benefits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761068</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>