<?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 (12) TMI 573 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240908</link>
    <description>Clearances of two units could not be clubbed for denial of small scale industry exemption because the evidence showed separate registrations, sheds, power connections, machinery and invoices, with lease rent and conversion charges paid independently. Mere common partners or family relationship was insufficient to establish that the units were one, and the Department failed to prove mutuality of interest or financial flow back. A notice issued only to one unit was also found unsustainable in the circumstances. The demand of duty, interest and penalty was therefore held not sustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339225" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 573 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240908</link>
      <description>Clearances of two units could not be clubbed for denial of small scale industry exemption because the evidence showed separate registrations, sheds, power connections, machinery and invoices, with lease rent and conversion charges paid independently. Mere common partners or family relationship was insufficient to establish that the units were one, and the Department failed to prove mutuality of interest or financial flow back. A notice issued only to one unit was also found unsustainable in the circumstances. The demand of duty, interest and penalty was therefore held not sustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240908</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>