<?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>2008 (7) TMI 107 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31129</link>
    <description>Common control over three interconnected units, operating from the same premises with shared machinery, staff, procurement and sales, supported clubbing of clearances and made the Revenue&#039;s appeal maintainable even though it named only one unit. The objection to maintainability failed because the respondent had not raised it earlier and the liability was treated as common. Admitted cash transactions of Rs. 25,00,000, corroborated by statements of persons connected with the units and not effectively retracted, were rightly added to turnover. On the same basis, the proprietor&#039;s penalty was enhanced because the admitted evasion showed that the original penalty was inadequate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69782" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 107 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31129</link>
      <description>Common control over three interconnected units, operating from the same premises with shared machinery, staff, procurement and sales, supported clubbing of clearances and made the Revenue&#039;s appeal maintainable even though it named only one unit. The objection to maintainability failed because the respondent had not raised it earlier and the liability was treated as common. Admitted cash transactions of Rs. 25,00,000, corroborated by statements of persons connected with the units and not effectively retracted, were rightly added to turnover. On the same basis, the proprietor&#039;s penalty was enhanced because the admitted evasion showed that the original penalty was inadequate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>