<?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>2015 (4) TMI 1023 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176749</link>
    <description>Clubbing a small-scale unit&#039;s clearances with those of other independent manufacturing units for denial of SSI exemption was held unsustainable where no show cause notice had been issued to those other units. Because their clearances were directly proposed to be included and their separate existence and control were in dispute, they were entitled to notice and an opportunity to meet the allegation that all units were owned and controlled by one person. A unilateral clubbing determination without hearing the affected units was impermissible. The Revenue&#039;s precedent was distinguished because it concerned dummy units without separate existence. The demand and penalties were set aside for want of notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:08:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 1023 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176749</link>
      <description>Clubbing a small-scale unit&#039;s clearances with those of other independent manufacturing units for denial of SSI exemption was held unsustainable where no show cause notice had been issued to those other units. Because their clearances were directly proposed to be included and their separate existence and control were in dispute, they were entitled to notice and an opportunity to meet the allegation that all units were owned and controlled by one person. A unilateral clubbing determination without hearing the affected units was impermissible. The Revenue&#039;s precedent was distinguished because it concerned dummy units without separate existence. The demand and penalties were set aside for want of notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>