<?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>1999 (5) TMI 243 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91830</link>
    <description>Clubbing of clearances between two units requires legally sustainable grounds such as dummy-unit status or financial flowback; common partners alone is insufficient. The article also notes that Brass Weight Sleeves were examined for excisability on whether they had reached marketable form, and that exemption for pressure-cooker parts could not be denied merely for non-compliance with Chapter X procedure without proper consideration of the substantive claim. Valuation based on the principal unit&#039;s cost sheets, the relevance of only job-work charges, and limitation were all required to be reconsidered on the evidence, and the matter was directed for de novo adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:55:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 243 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91830</link>
      <description>Clubbing of clearances between two units requires legally sustainable grounds such as dummy-unit status or financial flowback; common partners alone is insufficient. The article also notes that Brass Weight Sleeves were examined for excisability on whether they had reached marketable form, and that exemption for pressure-cooker parts could not be denied merely for non-compliance with Chapter X procedure without proper consideration of the substantive claim. Valuation based on the principal unit&#039;s cost sheets, the relevance of only job-work charges, and limitation were all required to be reconsidered on the evidence, and the matter was directed for de novo adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>