<?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 (7) TMI 424 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93923</link>
    <description>Denial of cross-examination did not breach natural justice where the appellants had multiple hearing opportunities, the relied-upon documents were supplied, and no adequate basis for examining the Department&#039;s witnesses was shown. Interconnected units were clubbed because the evidence showed common family control and coordinated purchases, sales, accounts, challans, and funds, indicating a facade to remain within the small scale industry exemption; the exemption was therefore unavailable and the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked. Penalties on the main and connected units, and confiscation of the goods and specified assets, were sustained, with only the penalty quantum reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:00:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 424 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93923</link>
      <description>Denial of cross-examination did not breach natural justice where the appellants had multiple hearing opportunities, the relied-upon documents were supplied, and no adequate basis for examining the Department&#039;s witnesses was shown. Interconnected units were clubbed because the evidence showed common family control and coordinated purchases, sales, accounts, challans, and funds, indicating a facade to remain within the small scale industry exemption; the exemption was therefore unavailable and the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked. Penalties on the main and connected units, and confiscation of the goods and specified assets, were sustained, with only the penalty quantum reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>