<?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>2011 (7) TMI 448 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207733</link>
    <description>A purportedly separate unit will be treated as a dummy concern, and its clearances clubbed with the main assessee&#039;s clearances for small scale exemption purposes, where it lacks independent manufacturing capability and the evidence shows the goods were actually produced by the assessee. In this matter, the unit had only crude distillation equipment, was non-functional during inspection, and the assessee&#039;s own staff indicated it did not operate regularly. Laboratory reports and expert evidence supported the conclusion that the goods described in its invoices could not have been manufactured there and must have come from the respondent&#039;s plant. Common water supply, common labour, and absence of independent operations confirmed the dummy nature; duty, interest, and penalty were therefore sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181208" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 448 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207733</link>
      <description>A purportedly separate unit will be treated as a dummy concern, and its clearances clubbed with the main assessee&#039;s clearances for small scale exemption purposes, where it lacks independent manufacturing capability and the evidence shows the goods were actually produced by the assessee. In this matter, the unit had only crude distillation equipment, was non-functional during inspection, and the assessee&#039;s own staff indicated it did not operate regularly. Laboratory reports and expert evidence supported the conclusion that the goods described in its invoices could not have been manufactured there and must have come from the respondent&#039;s plant. Common water supply, common labour, and absence of independent operations confirmed the dummy nature; duty, interest, and penalty were therefore sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207733</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>