<?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>2005 (2) TMI 637 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115210</link>
    <description>Substantial functional integration between two units, including common management, shared funds, labour and materials, common storage, the same brand name, and coordinated execution of orders, justified treating them as one manufacturing entity and the appellant as the real manufacturer liable to duty. The duty demand was confirmed, but quantification required recomputation by treating the sale price as cum-duty price and allowing Modvat credit on verification of duty-paying documents, with penalty to be redetermined on remand. Confiscation of seized goods was upheld, while confiscation of the land, building, plant and machinery was set aside as disproportionate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 17:15:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152209" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 637 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115210</link>
      <description>Substantial functional integration between two units, including common management, shared funds, labour and materials, common storage, the same brand name, and coordinated execution of orders, justified treating them as one manufacturing entity and the appellant as the real manufacturer liable to duty. The duty demand was confirmed, but quantification required recomputation by treating the sale price as cum-duty price and allowing Modvat credit on verification of duty-paying documents, with penalty to be redetermined on remand. Confiscation of seized goods was upheld, while confiscation of the land, building, plant and machinery was set aside as disproportionate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115210</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>