<?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>2001 (12) TMI 697 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105552</link>
    <description>Two divisions of the same factory, though separated by a public road, were treated as a single manufacturing unit because they operated under common management and maintained common records. The refusal of single Central Excise registration was held unsustainable, as the precedent relied on concerned distant and distinct factories and did not apply to these facts. Applicable trade notices and the Board&#039;s instructions allowed single registration for two premises of the same factory separated by a road, subject to proper accountal of goods movement and compliance with conditions. The impugned order was set aside and single registration was granted for both divisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:02:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142590" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 697 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105552</link>
      <description>Two divisions of the same factory, though separated by a public road, were treated as a single manufacturing unit because they operated under common management and maintained common records. The refusal of single Central Excise registration was held unsustainable, as the precedent relied on concerned distant and distinct factories and did not apply to these facts. Applicable trade notices and the Board&#039;s instructions allowed single registration for two premises of the same factory separated by a road, subject to proper accountal of goods movement and compliance with conditions. The impugned order was set aside and single registration was granted for both divisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105552</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>