<?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 (6) TMI 405 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210226</link>
    <description>Separate central excise registration is the general rule, but the registration scheme permits common registration where adjoining premises are in substance part of the same factory and are divided only by a public road, canal or railway line. Board guidelines treat interlinked manufacture as an important indicator, while factors such as common raw materials, electricity, labour, administration, sales tax registration and income-tax assessment are illustrative, not exhaustive. A finding that units were not interlinked merely because one unit&#039;s product was used in the other was inconsistent with those guidelines. The rejection of common registration was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on the full documentary record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 405 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210226</link>
      <description>Separate central excise registration is the general rule, but the registration scheme permits common registration where adjoining premises are in substance part of the same factory and are divided only by a public road, canal or railway line. Board guidelines treat interlinked manufacture as an important indicator, while factors such as common raw materials, electricity, labour, administration, sales tax registration and income-tax assessment are illustrative, not exhaustive. A finding that units were not interlinked merely because one unit&#039;s product was used in the other was inconsistent with those guidelines. The rejection of common registration was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on the full documentary record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>