<?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 (8) TMI 991 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757287</link>
    <description>A partnership dissolved on a partner&#039;s death unless a fresh arrangement shows continuation, so clearances could not be clubbed on the theory that the original firm still existed; the SSI exemption denial on that basis therefore failed. Clandestine manufacture and removal also required tangible, corroborated evidence, and seized invoices alone were insufficient where the maker was not examined and the supporting trail of raw materials, transport and sale proceeds was incomplete. The brand-name objection on &quot;Parrot&quot; likewise did not sustain the impugned demands. The appellate order was set aside, while only the limited unchallenged duty confirmation remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:07:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=764906" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 991 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757287</link>
      <description>A partnership dissolved on a partner&#039;s death unless a fresh arrangement shows continuation, so clearances could not be clubbed on the theory that the original firm still existed; the SSI exemption denial on that basis therefore failed. Clandestine manufacture and removal also required tangible, corroborated evidence, and seized invoices alone were insufficient where the maker was not examined and the supporting trail of raw materials, transport and sale proceeds was incomplete. The brand-name objection on &quot;Parrot&quot; likewise did not sustain the impugned demands. The appellate order was set aside, while only the limited unchallenged duty confirmation remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757287</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>