<?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 (7) TMI 1277 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363969</link>
    <description>Clearances of a proprietary unit and a partnership unit could be clubbed for denial of small scale exemption only if the units were shown to be dummy concerns with mutuality of interest, financial flow back, or pervasive financial and managerial control. The record did not establish such interdependence: the units were located at different places, had separate constitutions and business operations, and common ownership or participation by one person in both entities was insufficient by itself. The absence of notice to the partner of the allegedly dummy firm also weighed against clubbing. On these facts, denial of small scale exemption was unsustainable and the demand and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Jul 2018 09:36:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=527742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1277 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363969</link>
      <description>Clearances of a proprietary unit and a partnership unit could be clubbed for denial of small scale exemption only if the units were shown to be dummy concerns with mutuality of interest, financial flow back, or pervasive financial and managerial control. The record did not establish such interdependence: the units were located at different places, had separate constitutions and business operations, and common ownership or participation by one person in both entities was insufficient by itself. The absence of notice to the partner of the allegedly dummy firm also weighed against clubbing. On these facts, denial of small scale exemption was unsustainable and the demand and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363969</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>