<?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>2013 (4) TMI 57 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221861</link>
    <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the tax authorities, determining that the clearances of two companies should be clubbed for SSI exemption eligibility due to their operational connection. It upheld duty demands, interest, and penalties against the primary company and its directors. The tribunal accepted revised balance sheets and evidence from the Income Tax Department, dismissing claims of unaccounted sales. The denial of cross-examination of witnesses was deemed insignificant, with the extended limitation period invoked based on evidence of tax evasion. A substantial pre-deposit was ordered from the primary company, with the balance amount and penalties stayed pending appeal resolution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195213" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 57 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221861</link>
      <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the tax authorities, determining that the clearances of two companies should be clubbed for SSI exemption eligibility due to their operational connection. It upheld duty demands, interest, and penalties against the primary company and its directors. The tribunal accepted revised balance sheets and evidence from the Income Tax Department, dismissing claims of unaccounted sales. The denial of cross-examination of witnesses was deemed insignificant, with the extended limitation period invoked based on evidence of tax evasion. A substantial pre-deposit was ordered from the primary company, with the balance amount and penalties stayed pending appeal resolution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221861</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>