<?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>2018 (5) TMI 779 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360215</link>
    <description>Separate units with independent legal existence, different locations, separate machinery and separate tax registrations were treated as distinct for small scale exemption under Notification No. 75/87, because mere family relationship between owners and a temporary loan between units did not establish mutuality of interest or common control. The clearances therefore could not be clubbed, and the exemption remained available for the goods manufactured by the units. On limitation, prior declarations, departmental awareness of the units&#039; activities, and the absence of any proven intent to evade duty meant that suppression was not established, so the extended period could not be invoked and the demand was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 May 2018 08:43:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=520016" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 779 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360215</link>
      <description>Separate units with independent legal existence, different locations, separate machinery and separate tax registrations were treated as distinct for small scale exemption under Notification No. 75/87, because mere family relationship between owners and a temporary loan between units did not establish mutuality of interest or common control. The clearances therefore could not be clubbed, and the exemption remained available for the goods manufactured by the units. On limitation, prior declarations, departmental awareness of the units&#039; activities, and the absence of any proven intent to evade duty meant that suppression was not established, so the extended period could not be invoked and the demand was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>