<?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 (9) TMI 163 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92225</link>
    <description>Where an adjudicating authority finds that several units are only shadow or dummy concerns of one manufacturing entity for central excise purposes, duty and related liabilities must be assessed consistently on that basis. An inconsistent confirmation that treats each unit as independently liable cannot be sustained, and fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity to the parties is required when the factual matrix is materially the same as an earlier remand situation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:21:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129286" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 163 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92225</link>
      <description>Where an adjudicating authority finds that several units are only shadow or dummy concerns of one manufacturing entity for central excise purposes, duty and related liabilities must be assessed consistently on that basis. An inconsistent confirmation that treats each unit as independently liable cannot be sustained, and fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity to the parties is required when the factual matrix is materially the same as an earlier remand situation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>