<?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>2010 (12) TMI 26 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78811</link>
    <description>Common financial and management control justified clubbing the clearances of the appellant and associated companies for SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE, because common directors, an interest-free loan, and shared R&amp;D facilities showed interdependence and warranted lifting the corporate veil. The earlier circular did not prevent clubbing after the notification came into force. Product code names used on the flavours also operated as brand names, because they identified a trade connection with the associated company that had developed and marketed the goods and owned the codes. Exemption was therefore denied on both grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2025 11:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116915" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 26 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78811</link>
      <description>Common financial and management control justified clubbing the clearances of the appellant and associated companies for SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE, because common directors, an interest-free loan, and shared R&amp;D facilities showed interdependence and warranted lifting the corporate veil. The earlier circular did not prevent clubbing after the notification came into force. Product code names used on the flavours also operated as brand names, because they identified a trade connection with the associated company that had developed and marketed the goods and owned the codes. Exemption was therefore denied on both grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78811</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>