<?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 (4) TMI 667 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208312</link>
    <description>Clearances shown in the names of nominal or dummy units were clubbed with the controlling manufacturer because the evidence showed common control, financial interlinking, and a single operating network; separate small scale exemption was therefore unavailable. Misdeclaration of manufacture and clearance under other entities&#039; invoices constituted suppression with intent to evade duty, so the extended limitation period applied and penalties on the manufacturing concerns were sustainable. However, penalty on the buyer was not justified because conscious knowledge of goods liable to confiscation was not established merely from the production of reconstructed invoices.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181782" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 667 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208312</link>
      <description>Clearances shown in the names of nominal or dummy units were clubbed with the controlling manufacturer because the evidence showed common control, financial interlinking, and a single operating network; separate small scale exemption was therefore unavailable. Misdeclaration of manufacture and clearance under other entities&#039; invoices constituted suppression with intent to evade duty, so the extended limitation period applied and penalties on the manufacturing concerns were sustainable. However, penalty on the buyer was not justified because conscious knowledge of goods liable to confiscation was not established merely from the production of reconstructed invoices.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208312</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>