<?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>1991 (1) TMI 252 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80994</link>
    <description>Mere common management, business association, or marketing tie-up was held insufficient to club clearances of separately incorporated and independently functioning units for denial of small scale industry exemption. The record showed separate registration, financing, staffing, and management, and no conclusive proof of complete control or financial flow back; clubbing was therefore not maintainable and the penalties fell with the demand. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked because the Department already knew the relationship issue through earlier queries, replies, and classification scrutiny, so suppression of material facts was not established and the earlier demand was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:13:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (1) TMI 252 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80994</link>
      <description>Mere common management, business association, or marketing tie-up was held insufficient to club clearances of separately incorporated and independently functioning units for denial of small scale industry exemption. The record showed separate registration, financing, staffing, and management, and no conclusive proof of complete control or financial flow back; clubbing was therefore not maintainable and the penalties fell with the demand. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked because the Department already knew the relationship issue through earlier queries, replies, and classification scrutiny, so suppression of material facts was not established and the earlier demand was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80994</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>