<?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>2023 (3) TMI 1070 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435684</link>
    <description>Identical partnership ownership with equal profit-sharing justified treating two units as commonly owned for small scale industry exemption purposes. Under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, the exemption applies to the aggregate clearances of a manufacturer from one or more factories, so the clearances of both units had to be clubbed for the eligibility limit. The objection that no show cause notice was issued to the other unit was rejected because the clubbing issue arose from common ownership within partnership firms, not from separate ownership. The other unit&#039;s clearances were therefore validly includable in the appellant&#039;s aggregate clearances, and denial of exemption was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Mar 2023 08:45:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=708634" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (3) TMI 1070 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435684</link>
      <description>Identical partnership ownership with equal profit-sharing justified treating two units as commonly owned for small scale industry exemption purposes. Under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, the exemption applies to the aggregate clearances of a manufacturer from one or more factories, so the clearances of both units had to be clubbed for the eligibility limit. The objection that no show cause notice was issued to the other unit was rejected because the clubbing issue arose from common ownership within partnership firms, not from separate ownership. The other unit&#039;s clearances were therefore validly includable in the appellant&#039;s aggregate clearances, and denial of exemption was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>