<?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>1996 (12) TMI 164 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86208</link>
    <description>Clubbing of clearances for Notification No. 175/86 was justified where cumulative facts showed that two units were not independent and that there was common control, common marketing and administration, shared resources, and financial flow back. The commentary states that clubbing cannot rest on a single factor; rather, multiple indicators together established that the second unit formed part of the same manufacturing arrangement. It also notes that suppression of these facts from the Department, with the object of securing exemption and evading duty, justified invocation of the extended limitation period and supported penalty, which was reduced in amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 08 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:58:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (12) TMI 164 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86208</link>
      <description>Clubbing of clearances for Notification No. 175/86 was justified where cumulative facts showed that two units were not independent and that there was common control, common marketing and administration, shared resources, and financial flow back. The commentary states that clubbing cannot rest on a single factor; rather, multiple indicators together established that the second unit formed part of the same manufacturing arrangement. It also notes that suppression of these facts from the Department, with the object of securing exemption and evading duty, justified invocation of the extended limitation period and supported penalty, which was reduced in amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 08 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>