<?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 (9) TMI 456 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116803</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s order, ruling that the smaller units were not dummy units but operated independently with separate registrations and business operations. The absence of fund flow back and separate filings under various legislations supported this finding, leading to the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging the Order-in-Original.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:31:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153801" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 456 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116803</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s order, ruling that the smaller units were not dummy units but operated independently with separate registrations and business operations. The absence of fund flow back and separate filings under various legislations supported this finding, leading to the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging the Order-in-Original.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116803</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>