<?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>2008 (2) TMI 101 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4470</link>
    <description>A unit is not a dummy merely because of common partnership, job work, family links, or financial assistance if substantive evidence shows independent manufacturing activity. Separate factory premises, machinery, workmen, power connection, registrations, approvals, procurement, storage, repair records, electricity bills, salary registers, and direct dealings with the department supported genuine independent existence. The job work arrangement under the relevant notifications did not by itself prove a facade, and brand name reliance was excluded because it was not part of the show cause notice or adjudication order. On these facts, the unit&#039;s clearances could not be clubbed and small scale industry exemption remained available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43812" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 101 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4470</link>
      <description>A unit is not a dummy merely because of common partnership, job work, family links, or financial assistance if substantive evidence shows independent manufacturing activity. Separate factory premises, machinery, workmen, power connection, registrations, approvals, procurement, storage, repair records, electricity bills, salary registers, and direct dealings with the department supported genuine independent existence. The job work arrangement under the relevant notifications did not by itself prove a facade, and brand name reliance was excluded because it was not part of the show cause notice or adjudication order. On these facts, the unit&#039;s clearances could not be clubbed and small scale industry exemption remained available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>