<?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>2004 (8) TMI 108 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47031</link>
    <description>Pervasive financial and managerial control, together with suppressed transactional arrangements, can justify treating nominally separate bottling units as dummy entities. The record showed minimal share capital, assessee funding, continuing control through lease and sub-lease arrangements, shared staff and operations, and collection of funds by an employee linked to the same group; on that basis, the corporate form was disregarded and duty, penalty and confiscation were sustained. Suppression of the real arrangement also supported invocation of the extended limitation period, and the plea that no manufacture was involved did not assist where the exemption position and valuation adopted by the assessee were not accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 20:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85551" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 108 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47031</link>
      <description>Pervasive financial and managerial control, together with suppressed transactional arrangements, can justify treating nominally separate bottling units as dummy entities. The record showed minimal share capital, assessee funding, continuing control through lease and sub-lease arrangements, shared staff and operations, and collection of funds by an employee linked to the same group; on that basis, the corporate form was disregarded and duty, penalty and confiscation were sustained. Suppression of the real arrangement also supported invocation of the extended limitation period, and the plea that no manufacture was involved did not assist where the exemption position and valuation adopted by the assessee were not accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>