<?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>2002 (8) TMI 655 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106675</link>
    <description>An excise demand and penalty against a unit treated as non-existent could not stand where the same reasoning also clubbed its clearances with another unit and denied exemption on the basis that the second unit lacked independent existence. That internal inconsistency made the order unsustainable on its stated premise. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:08:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143695" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 655 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106675</link>
      <description>An excise demand and penalty against a unit treated as non-existent could not stand where the same reasoning also clubbed its clearances with another unit and denied exemption on the basis that the second unit lacked independent existence. That internal inconsistency made the order unsustainable on its stated premise. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>