<?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>2008 (11) TMI 500 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125013</link>
    <description>Clubbing of clearances was rejected where the Revenue did not specifically challenge the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s finding, no show cause notice was issued to the other units proposed to be aggregated, and the record did not establish financial flow back. On those facts, the appellate finding against aggregation was sustained, and the duty demand could not be maintained on a clubbing basis. The discussion also noted that, even assuming manufacture of system furniture and work stations, the clearances would remain within the small-scale industry exemption limit, so the proceedings were defective and the adverse demand, penalties, and interest could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:03:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 500 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125013</link>
      <description>Clubbing of clearances was rejected where the Revenue did not specifically challenge the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s finding, no show cause notice was issued to the other units proposed to be aggregated, and the record did not establish financial flow back. On those facts, the appellate finding against aggregation was sustained, and the duty demand could not be maintained on a clubbing basis. The discussion also noted that, even assuming manufacture of system furniture and work stations, the clearances would remain within the small-scale industry exemption limit, so the proceedings were defective and the adverse demand, penalties, and interest could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125013</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>