<?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>2017 (5) TMI 691 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342953</link>
    <description>Clearance value of an associated unit cannot be clubbed with a respondent for denying SSI exemption where the two entities are separate legal persons and the facts do not establish one as a dummy unit of the other. Here, a partnership firm and a private limited company were found to have dealt through commercial transactions, including fund movements and job-work arrangements, without the mutuality of interest needed to justify clubbing of clearances. On that basis, the associated unit&#039;s clearances could not be aggregated with the respondent&#039;s, and denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 9/2001-C.E. was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 May 2017 06:50:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=468733" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 691 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342953</link>
      <description>Clearance value of an associated unit cannot be clubbed with a respondent for denying SSI exemption where the two entities are separate legal persons and the facts do not establish one as a dummy unit of the other. Here, a partnership firm and a private limited company were found to have dealt through commercial transactions, including fund movements and job-work arrangements, without the mutuality of interest needed to justify clubbing of clearances. On that basis, the associated unit&#039;s clearances could not be aggregated with the respondent&#039;s, and denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 9/2001-C.E. was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>