<?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>2024 (6) TMI 184 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753577</link>
    <description>A concessional excise exemption applied only where a manufacturer&#039;s aggregate clearances stayed within the prescribed limit. The two units at Bathinda and Panchkula were run by the same partners under the same firm name, and the split into separate partnership deeds and factories was treated as an artificial arrangement to secure exemption. Their clearances were therefore required to be clubbed, and the duty demand for the relevant period was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2024 08:21:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=755437" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 184 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753577</link>
      <description>A concessional excise exemption applied only where a manufacturer&#039;s aggregate clearances stayed within the prescribed limit. The two units at Bathinda and Panchkula were run by the same partners under the same firm name, and the split into separate partnership deeds and factories was treated as an artificial arrangement to secure exemption. Their clearances were therefore required to be clubbed, and the duty demand for the relevant period was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753577</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>