<?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>Appellant held a &quot;new industrial unit&quot; under Para 5(a) of Notification No.20/2007-C.E.; ten-year exemption granted</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92335</link>
    <description>CESTAT upheld the Original Authority&#039;s determination that the appellant qualifies as a &quot;new industrial unit&quot; under Para 5(a) of Notification No.20/2007-C.E., concluding the unit commenced commercial production w.e.f. 31.03.2017. The Tribunal rejected the revenue&#039;s continuity theory equating the appellant with the pre-existing unit, finding distinct operational setups and no evidentiary basis to treat them as identical; the appellant&#039;s establishment at a location approved by the competent State Committee further corroborated its status. Because the appellant falls within the first category of the Notification, the 25% expansion precondition is inapplicable. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to the ten-year exemption under Notification No.20/2007-C.E.; appeal disposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 08:38:58 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 08:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=849095" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appellant held a &quot;new industrial unit&quot; under Para 5(a) of Notification No.20/2007-C.E.; ten-year exemption granted</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92335</link>
      <description>CESTAT upheld the Original Authority&#039;s determination that the appellant qualifies as a &quot;new industrial unit&quot; under Para 5(a) of Notification No.20/2007-C.E., concluding the unit commenced commercial production w.e.f. 31.03.2017. The Tribunal rejected the revenue&#039;s continuity theory equating the appellant with the pre-existing unit, finding distinct operational setups and no evidentiary basis to treat them as identical; the appellant&#039;s establishment at a location approved by the competent State Committee further corroborated its status. Because the appellant falls within the first category of the Notification, the 25% expansion precondition is inapplicable. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to the ten-year exemption under Notification No.20/2007-C.E.; appeal disposed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 08:38:58 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>