<?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>2004 (6) TMI 475 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113531</link>
    <description>Clubbing of clearances is permissible only where there is clear proof of mutuality of business interest, common funding, and financial flow back; common management, shared premises, common relatives, similar products, or inter-unit loans by themselves do not establish dummy units. On the facts, the evidence did not show that the units were fictitious or operated as one concern, so denial of small-scale exemption and the related duty and penalty demands based on clubbing were not sustainable. The connected questions of brand name use, clandestine clearance, and related interest and penalties were remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2024 11:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150537" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 475 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113531</link>
      <description>Clubbing of clearances is permissible only where there is clear proof of mutuality of business interest, common funding, and financial flow back; common management, shared premises, common relatives, similar products, or inter-unit loans by themselves do not establish dummy units. On the facts, the evidence did not show that the units were fictitious or operated as one concern, so denial of small-scale exemption and the related duty and penalty demands based on clubbing were not sustainable. The connected questions of brand name use, clandestine clearance, and related interest and penalties were remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113531</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>