<?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 (8) TMI 409 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364937</link>
    <description>Clearances of two units could not be clubbed to deny small scale exemption where each unit was independently registered, separately equipped, and capable of manufacturing on its own. Mere common family control or overlapping management was insufficient to treat one unit as a dummy of the other in the absence of financial intertwining or evidence that one operated under the guise of the other. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed and the small scale exemption was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2018 08:03:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=529927" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 409 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364937</link>
      <description>Clearances of two units could not be clubbed to deny small scale exemption where each unit was independently registered, separately equipped, and capable of manufacturing on its own. Mere common family control or overlapping management was insufficient to treat one unit as a dummy of the other in the absence of financial intertwining or evidence that one operated under the guise of the other. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed and the small scale exemption was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364937</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>