<?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>2003 (4) TMI 413 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108465</link>
    <description>Manufacture of derivatives from duty-paid turpentine and rosin remained dutiable because a commercially distinct marketable product emerged, even though the goods stayed under the same tariff heading. Clearances of three units were clubbed for small-scale exemption purposes because the evidence showed common control, shared facilities, interlinked finance, and dummy character. Suppression of the true arrangement justified invocation of the extended limitation period. Separate duty demands against the alleged dummy units were set aside because the principal manufacturer was the real entity. For valuation, factory gate price applied for the proven period, with remand for the balance period. Penalties were sustained only against the principal unit and controlling person, while those on two individuals were deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:14:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145482" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 413 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108465</link>
      <description>Manufacture of derivatives from duty-paid turpentine and rosin remained dutiable because a commercially distinct marketable product emerged, even though the goods stayed under the same tariff heading. Clearances of three units were clubbed for small-scale exemption purposes because the evidence showed common control, shared facilities, interlinked finance, and dummy character. Suppression of the true arrangement justified invocation of the extended limitation period. Separate duty demands against the alleged dummy units were set aside because the principal manufacturer was the real entity. For valuation, factory gate price applied for the proven period, with remand for the balance period. Penalties were sustained only against the principal unit and controlling person, while those on two individuals were deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>