<?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>1990 (5) TMI 116 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80556</link>
    <description>Clubbing of clearances for small-scale industry exemption requires reliable proof that two units have mutuality of interest or are not functioning independently; common staff, shared telephone lines, and family links are insufficient by themselves. On the facts discussed, the transactions were treated as ordinary commercial dealings, so clubbing and denial of exemption were not justified. Valuation of an air separating column for exemption-limit purposes must be supported by evidence of true comparability in type, components, and specifications; incomplete investigation and unreliable comparable invoices cannot sustain an enhanced valuation. The alleged undervaluation was therefore not established, and the exemption limit could not be treated as exceeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:15:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117702" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (5) TMI 116 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80556</link>
      <description>Clubbing of clearances for small-scale industry exemption requires reliable proof that two units have mutuality of interest or are not functioning independently; common staff, shared telephone lines, and family links are insufficient by themselves. On the facts discussed, the transactions were treated as ordinary commercial dealings, so clubbing and denial of exemption were not justified. Valuation of an air separating column for exemption-limit purposes must be supported by evidence of true comparability in type, components, and specifications; incomplete investigation and unreliable comparable invoices cannot sustain an enhanced valuation. The alleged undervaluation was therefore not established, and the exemption limit could not be treated as exceeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80556</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>