<?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>2003 (10) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47142</link>
    <description>A small scale industrial unit claiming exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was entitled to the concession where its provisional registration was recognised under the departmental circular issued under Section 37B and the original registration certificate was later produced and verified as genuine. The operative principle was that, once the notification conditions were substantively satisfied and the certificate&#039;s genuineness was confirmed by the Revenue, exemption could not be denied on the technical ground that permanent registration had not earlier been produced. The commentary states that the denial of exemption and the Tribunal&#039;s contrary view were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:57:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47142</link>
      <description>A small scale industrial unit claiming exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was entitled to the concession where its provisional registration was recognised under the departmental circular issued under Section 37B and the original registration certificate was later produced and verified as genuine. The operative principle was that, once the notification conditions were substantively satisfied and the certificate&#039;s genuineness was confirmed by the Revenue, exemption could not be denied on the technical ground that permanent registration had not earlier been produced. The commentary states that the denial of exemption and the Tribunal&#039;s contrary view were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47142</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>