<?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>2020 (7) TMI 291 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396622</link>
    <description>Private limited companies are separate manufacturers for small-scale industry exemption purposes, and their clearances cannot be clubbed merely because they share shareholders, directors, premises, or occasional fund movements. The exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. was held to remain available where the units had separate incorporation, registrations, products, accounts, workforces, and demarcated factory space, and where there was no proof of profit sharing, account manipulation, or real financial flow back. Mere common management or normal commercial dealings was insufficient to treat the units as one manufacturer. On that basis, clubbing of clearances was rejected and the exemption was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2020 10:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 291 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396622</link>
      <description>Private limited companies are separate manufacturers for small-scale industry exemption purposes, and their clearances cannot be clubbed merely because they share shareholders, directors, premises, or occasional fund movements. The exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. was held to remain available where the units had separate incorporation, registrations, products, accounts, workforces, and demarcated factory space, and where there was no proof of profit sharing, account manipulation, or real financial flow back. Mere common management or normal commercial dealings was insufficient to treat the units as one manufacturer. On that basis, clubbing of clearances was rejected and the exemption was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396622</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>