<?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 (9) TMI 16 -  CESTAT,MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=953</link>
    <description>Clearances of a partnership concern could not be clubbed with those of a private limited company merely because of common directors or partners, occasional raw-material supplies, transfer of orders, or financial dealings, where both entities were separately constituted and independently functioning manufacturers with separate premises, machinery, licences, and approved declarations. The private limited company was recognised as a separate manufacturer for SSI exemption purposes, so the partnership concern remained entitled to exemption in its own right. The demand was also time-barred because the facts were within departmental knowledge through licensed operations and approved classification lists, and no suppression or wilful misstatement was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40379" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 16 -  CESTAT,MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=953</link>
      <description>Clearances of a partnership concern could not be clubbed with those of a private limited company merely because of common directors or partners, occasional raw-material supplies, transfer of orders, or financial dealings, where both entities were separately constituted and independently functioning manufacturers with separate premises, machinery, licences, and approved declarations. The private limited company was recognised as a separate manufacturer for SSI exemption purposes, so the partnership concern remained entitled to exemption in its own right. The demand was also time-barred because the facts were within departmental knowledge through licensed operations and approved classification lists, and no suppression or wilful misstatement was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>