<?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 (10) TMI 520 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112495</link>
    <description>Manufacturing units in the same premises that are functionally interlinked and separated only by a safety barrier erected under legal compulsion may be treated as one factory for Central Excise registration. On that basis, common management, common PAN and supporting Board instructions justified single registration for the sugar, molasses and distillery units, and the contrary view was unsustainable. Because the demand and penalties were founded entirely on separate treatment of the units, they also could not survive once single registration was accepted. The absence of a personal hearing was noted, but the decisive point was the entitlement to single registration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:52:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 520 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112495</link>
      <description>Manufacturing units in the same premises that are functionally interlinked and separated only by a safety barrier erected under legal compulsion may be treated as one factory for Central Excise registration. On that basis, common management, common PAN and supporting Board instructions justified single registration for the sugar, molasses and distillery units, and the contrary view was unsustainable. Because the demand and penalties were founded entirely on separate treatment of the units, they also could not survive once single registration was accepted. The absence of a personal hearing was noted, but the decisive point was the entitlement to single registration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112495</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>