<?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>2000 (3) TMI 293 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93451</link>
    <description>Clubbing of clearances was not justified because the evidence did not prove that the units were dummy concerns under common control or that there was the required financial flow back. Shared premises, family relationship, loans, guarantees, and business assistance were held insufficient without proof of overall control over production, sales, or management. Colorica&#039;s activity of developing photographic plates for offset printing was not treated as manufacture, so its clearances could not be added to the appellant&#039;s clearances. The duty demand based on clubbing was therefore unsustainable and the appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:38:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 293 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93451</link>
      <description>Clubbing of clearances was not justified because the evidence did not prove that the units were dummy concerns under common control or that there was the required financial flow back. Shared premises, family relationship, loans, guarantees, and business assistance were held insufficient without proof of overall control over production, sales, or management. Colorica&#039;s activity of developing photographic plates for offset printing was not treated as manufacture, so its clearances could not be added to the appellant&#039;s clearances. The duty demand based on clubbing was therefore unsustainable and the appeals were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93451</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>