<?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>1994 (4) TMI 158 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83235</link>
    <description>Closely related partnership firms using the same factory, machinery and business structure to split clearances for small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86 may be treated as a single entity where the arrangement shows common control and identity of interest. An SSI certificate standing in the name of one firm does not automatically extend exemption to other concerns if the original certificated unit has effectively ceased and the separateness is only formal. Suppression of the true interrelationship and use of devices to cross the exemption limit justify invocation of the extended period of limitation. Penalties on the partners were upheld in principle, but reduced on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:26:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120380" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (4) TMI 158 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83235</link>
      <description>Closely related partnership firms using the same factory, machinery and business structure to split clearances for small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86 may be treated as a single entity where the arrangement shows common control and identity of interest. An SSI certificate standing in the name of one firm does not automatically extend exemption to other concerns if the original certificated unit has effectively ceased and the separateness is only formal. Suppression of the true interrelationship and use of devices to cross the exemption limit justify invocation of the extended period of limitation. Penalties on the partners were upheld in principle, but reduced on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83235</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>