<?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 (11) TMI 1019 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239842</link>
    <description>Clearances of separately incorporated group units may be clubbed for denying small scale industry exemption where the evidence shows common directors, substantial common family shareholding, and pervasive financial and managerial control by one concern over the others. On the stated facts, one company controlled finance, procurement, production planning, quality control, sales, and fund transfers, while the other units depended on it for operations and supplied most or all of their output to it. Separate registrations and balance sheets did not prevent aggregation where the corporate structure was used to split activity and secure exemption. The corporate veil could therefore be lifted, and the exemption denied on an aggregated basis, with duty demand and penalties sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 May 2015 17:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336662" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1019 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239842</link>
      <description>Clearances of separately incorporated group units may be clubbed for denying small scale industry exemption where the evidence shows common directors, substantial common family shareholding, and pervasive financial and managerial control by one concern over the others. On the stated facts, one company controlled finance, procurement, production planning, quality control, sales, and fund transfers, while the other units depended on it for operations and supplied most or all of their output to it. Separate registrations and balance sheets did not prevent aggregation where the corporate structure was used to split activity and secure exemption. The corporate veil could therefore be lifted, and the exemption denied on an aggregated basis, with duty demand and penalties sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>