<?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>2004 (1) TMI 266 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53193</link>
    <description>For SSI exemption, aggregate clearances must be computed on the valuation basis prescribed in the exemption notification, not by reference to a different valuation adopted under another notification; the assessee&#039;s computation on the notified basis was accepted. Clearances of branded goods manufactured by loan licensees and otherwise ineligible for exemption were excluded from the SSI aggregation, leaving eligibility unaffected except for the financial year where the admitted limit was exceeded. The limitation objection also failed because the relevant period was covered by a High Court stay. The impugned order granting substantial SSI relief was upheld and the Revenue challenge rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:36:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91670" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 266 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53193</link>
      <description>For SSI exemption, aggregate clearances must be computed on the valuation basis prescribed in the exemption notification, not by reference to a different valuation adopted under another notification; the assessee&#039;s computation on the notified basis was accepted. Clearances of branded goods manufactured by loan licensees and otherwise ineligible for exemption were excluded from the SSI aggregation, leaving eligibility unaffected except for the financial year where the admitted limit was exceeded. The limitation objection also failed because the relevant period was covered by a High Court stay. The impugned order granting substantial SSI relief was upheld and the Revenue challenge rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53193</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>