<?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 (10) TMI 442 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114572</link>
    <description>Separate registration certificates for two manufacturing units supported the appellant&#039;s case against clubbing of clearances, and there was no material showing cancellation of the registration of the other unit. On that prima facie basis, the allegation that the units existed only on paper was not accepted at the stage of considering stay. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were therefore granted in respect of the duty demand and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 10:25:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 442 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114572</link>
      <description>Separate registration certificates for two manufacturing units supported the appellant&#039;s case against clubbing of clearances, and there was no material showing cancellation of the registration of the other unit. On that prima facie basis, the allegation that the units existed only on paper was not accepted at the stage of considering stay. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were therefore granted in respect of the duty demand and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114572</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>