<?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>2001 (1) TMI 171 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50484</link>
    <description>Where a Government-controlled undertaking operates multiple factories, each unit may be treated as an independent factory for SSI exemption if the exemption notification and its explanation support that treatment. The Tribunal applied earlier decisions in the appellant&#039;s own case and Supreme Court guidance on factory ownership and management, holding that the persons managing the factory are the occupier for notification purposes even when the State undertaking is the owner. On that basis, Explanation V to Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was treated as applicable, and the later amendment was read consistently with that interpretation. The individual units&#039; clearances were therefore not required to be clubbed for denying the SSI benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:29:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88964" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 171 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50484</link>
      <description>Where a Government-controlled undertaking operates multiple factories, each unit may be treated as an independent factory for SSI exemption if the exemption notification and its explanation support that treatment. The Tribunal applied earlier decisions in the appellant&#039;s own case and Supreme Court guidance on factory ownership and management, holding that the persons managing the factory are the occupier for notification purposes even when the State undertaking is the owner. On that basis, Explanation V to Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was treated as applicable, and the later amendment was read consistently with that interpretation. The individual units&#039; clearances were therefore not required to be clubbed for denying the SSI benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50484</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>