<?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 (9) TMI 914 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758670</link>
    <description>CESTAT Bangalore set aside the denial of SSI exemption under N/N. 08/2003-CE for sealing machine manufacturer. Revenue alleged that Decentralized Mother Units (DMUs) were dummy units controlled by appellant to claim SSI exemption benefits, and that appellant was the actual manufacturer since final processes occurred at their premises. CESTAT found DMUs had independent existence based on commercial negotiations and separate operations. The sealing machines received by appellant from DMUs were complete products, with subsequent branding and packing not constituting manufacturing. Revenue failed to establish that DMUs were dummy units or that appellant should be denied SSI exemption benefits. Appeals allowed, confiscation and penalties set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2024 18:50:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=768572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 914 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758670</link>
      <description>CESTAT Bangalore set aside the denial of SSI exemption under N/N. 08/2003-CE for sealing machine manufacturer. Revenue alleged that Decentralized Mother Units (DMUs) were dummy units controlled by appellant to claim SSI exemption benefits, and that appellant was the actual manufacturer since final processes occurred at their premises. CESTAT found DMUs had independent existence based on commercial negotiations and separate operations. The sealing machines received by appellant from DMUs were complete products, with subsequent branding and packing not constituting manufacturing. Revenue failed to establish that DMUs were dummy units or that appellant should be denied SSI exemption benefits. Appeals allowed, confiscation and penalties set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758670</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>