<?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>1966 (3) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45834</link>
    <description>An excise exemption proviso limiting the first 20,000 sq. metres benefit where a person has proprietary interest in more than one processing factory was held to apply to partnership holdings. A partner&#039;s interest in a firm was treated as proprietary interest for the notification, so the exemption had to be shared proportionately between factories where the same person had an interest in more than one qualifying unit. The argument that the proviso covered only direct individual ownership and not partnership interests was rejected because the wording of the notification was broad enough to include such interests. The petitioners&#039; claim for separate full exemption therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:28:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84361" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (3) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45834</link>
      <description>An excise exemption proviso limiting the first 20,000 sq. metres benefit where a person has proprietary interest in more than one processing factory was held to apply to partnership holdings. A partner&#039;s interest in a firm was treated as proprietary interest for the notification, so the exemption had to be shared proportionately between factories where the same person had an interest in more than one qualifying unit. The argument that the proviso covered only direct individual ownership and not partnership interests was rejected because the wording of the notification was broad enough to include such interests. The petitioners&#039; claim for separate full exemption therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45834</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>