<?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>1997 (9) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87292</link>
    <description>Common control, shared premises, workers, brand usage, inter-unit movement of work-in-progress and financial links were treated as indicators of artificial fragmentation of one manufacturing activity to keep clearances below the small-scale industry exemption threshold. On that basis, the clearances of multiple concerns were clubbed as those of a single manufacturer and the exemption was held unavailable. Deliberate suppression, false declarations and evasion of licensing control justified invocation of the extended period under the proviso to section 11A(1), so the demand was treated as in time. The same findings of suppression and evasion also supported imposition of penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 10:48:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124359" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87292</link>
      <description>Common control, shared premises, workers, brand usage, inter-unit movement of work-in-progress and financial links were treated as indicators of artificial fragmentation of one manufacturing activity to keep clearances below the small-scale industry exemption threshold. On that basis, the clearances of multiple concerns were clubbed as those of a single manufacturer and the exemption was held unavailable. Deliberate suppression, false declarations and evasion of licensing control justified invocation of the extended period under the proviso to section 11A(1), so the demand was treated as in time. The same findings of suppression and evasion also supported imposition of penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87292</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>