<?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>2009 (1) TMI 233 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34443</link>
    <description>Clubbing of clearances for denial of small scale industry exemption is justified only where evidence shows one unit is a facade or dummy of the other, with common funding, financial flow back, shared profits, and no real separate identity. Common family links, shared premises, common equipment, mutual accommodation, or cross-use of labour and infrastructure, by themselves, are insufficient. On the facts, the two partnership concerns were separate, made different products, and the material did not establish common funding or profit-sharing. The clearances therefore could not be clubbed, and the demand and penalties were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73066" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 233 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34443</link>
      <description>Clubbing of clearances for denial of small scale industry exemption is justified only where evidence shows one unit is a facade or dummy of the other, with common funding, financial flow back, shared profits, and no real separate identity. Common family links, shared premises, common equipment, mutual accommodation, or cross-use of labour and infrastructure, by themselves, are insufficient. On the facts, the two partnership concerns were separate, made different products, and the material did not establish common funding or profit-sharing. The clearances therefore could not be clubbed, and the demand and penalties were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34443</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>