<?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>1988 (4) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73672</link>
    <description>Two partnership firms manufacturing the same goods were treated as one for small-scale exemption purposes because the second firm was found, on the partnership deeds and surrounding circumstances, to be a colourable device to evade the clearances-based limit under Notification No. 105/80. The Tribunal applied partnership identity principles and held that the later firm had no genuine independent business purpose, especially as it was formed when exemption-linked clearances were already running and the partners&#039; wives were inducted into the arrangement. In the absence of any excise law altering partnership law, the second firm&#039;s clearances were attributable to the first firm, so exemption was correctly denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:15:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111951" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73672</link>
      <description>Two partnership firms manufacturing the same goods were treated as one for small-scale exemption purposes because the second firm was found, on the partnership deeds and surrounding circumstances, to be a colourable device to evade the clearances-based limit under Notification No. 105/80. The Tribunal applied partnership identity principles and held that the later firm had no genuine independent business purpose, especially as it was formed when exemption-linked clearances were already running and the partners&#039; wives were inducted into the arrangement. In the absence of any excise law altering partnership law, the second firm&#039;s clearances were attributable to the first firm, so exemption was correctly denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73672</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>