<?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 1081 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343343</link>
    <description>Separate registrations did not prevent clubbing of clearances where four units shared common administration, infrastructure, machinery, finance and management, and goods moved freely between premises without proper documentation or duty discharge; their operations were treated as a single manufacturing arrangement for SSI exemption. Suppression of these material facts, despite departmental awareness of the separate units, justified invocation of the extended period of limitation because the full operational arrangement was not disclosed. The credit dispute on endorsed gate passes was not finally decided on the existing record and was remanded for fresh examination of the evidentiary value of the documents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 May 2017 07:55:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=469503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1081 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343343</link>
      <description>Separate registrations did not prevent clubbing of clearances where four units shared common administration, infrastructure, machinery, finance and management, and goods moved freely between premises without proper documentation or duty discharge; their operations were treated as a single manufacturing arrangement for SSI exemption. Suppression of these material facts, despite departmental awareness of the separate units, justified invocation of the extended period of limitation because the full operational arrangement was not disclosed. The credit dispute on endorsed gate passes was not finally decided on the existing record and was remanded for fresh examination of the evidentiary value of the documents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343343</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>