<?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>2016 (1) TMI 150 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270358</link>
    <description>Clubbing of clearances for SSI exemption was held unsustainable where four separately incorporated and registered units retained independent legal existence. The record did not show that they were dummy concerns, financially financed or floated by the main entity, or that there was any flow back of funds, profit sharing, or common ownership of assets. Mere common management, administrative influence, or ordinary commercial dealings was insufficient to treat them as one manufacturer. In the absence of a clear legal basis under the notification, the exemption could not be denied on clubbing grounds, and reliance on the Board circular did not cure that defect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=411895" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 150 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270358</link>
      <description>Clubbing of clearances for SSI exemption was held unsustainable where four separately incorporated and registered units retained independent legal existence. The record did not show that they were dummy concerns, financially financed or floated by the main entity, or that there was any flow back of funds, profit sharing, or common ownership of assets. Mere common management, administrative influence, or ordinary commercial dealings was insufficient to treat them as one manufacturer. In the absence of a clear legal basis under the notification, the exemption could not be denied on clubbing grounds, and reliance on the Board circular did not cure that defect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>