<?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>2005 (11) TMI 14 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=552</link>
    <description>Separate legal entities cannot have their clearances clubbed to deny SSI exemption unless the record proves they are dummy units or related persons with mutuality of interest and flow back of profits; common directors or occasional financial accommodation alone is insufficient, so related-person valuation does not apply. Design charges received by the entity performing the work cannot be added to another manufacturer&#039;s assessable value without a legal basis under the transaction-value framework. Where the notice was issued after a long delay and the facts did not establish suppression with intent to evade duty, the extended period was unavailable and the penalties could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 14 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=552</link>
      <description>Separate legal entities cannot have their clearances clubbed to deny SSI exemption unless the record proves they are dummy units or related persons with mutuality of interest and flow back of profits; common directors or occasional financial accommodation alone is insufficient, so related-person valuation does not apply. Design charges received by the entity performing the work cannot be added to another manufacturer&#039;s assessable value without a legal basis under the transaction-value framework. Where the notice was issued after a long delay and the facts did not establish suppression with intent to evade duty, the extended period was unavailable and the penalties could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=552</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>