<?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 (4) TMI 358 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94405</link>
    <description>Common directors or business links do not by themselves establish dummy units or justify clubbing of clearances. Separate premises, registrations and independent business arrangements negatived the allegation that the units lacked independent existence, and advances adjusted against bills did not amount to impermissible financial flowback. The commentary also states that the extended period of limitation under the Central Excise Act cannot be invoked without proved suppression of material facts or wilful misstatement. On these principles, clubbing and denial of exemption were unsustainable, and the demand was treated as time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:29:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131465" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 358 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94405</link>
      <description>Common directors or business links do not by themselves establish dummy units or justify clubbing of clearances. Separate premises, registrations and independent business arrangements negatived the allegation that the units lacked independent existence, and advances adjusted against bills did not amount to impermissible financial flowback. The commentary also states that the extended period of limitation under the Central Excise Act cannot be invoked without proved suppression of material facts or wilful misstatement. On these principles, clubbing and denial of exemption were unsustainable, and the demand was treated as time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>