<?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>2012 (5) TMI 881 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466378</link>
    <description>Clubbing of clearances for small-scale exemption was held unsustainable where husband-and-wife units were separately registered, operated from different premises and had separate financial resources, because marital relationship and business assistance alone did not establish mutuality of interest. Confiscation of seized goods and raw materials was also set aside where the alleged clandestine manufacture of air-conditioners was not supported by tangible evidence. Denial of exemption based on aggregate clearances was remitted for reconsideration because the computation had not been properly examined. For alleged clandestine removal, the text emphasises that suspicion, solitary retracted statements and uncorroborated ledger entries cannot replace positive, independent evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2026 10:42:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=884131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 881 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466378</link>
      <description>Clubbing of clearances for small-scale exemption was held unsustainable where husband-and-wife units were separately registered, operated from different premises and had separate financial resources, because marital relationship and business assistance alone did not establish mutuality of interest. Confiscation of seized goods and raw materials was also set aside where the alleged clandestine manufacture of air-conditioners was not supported by tangible evidence. Denial of exemption based on aggregate clearances was remitted for reconsideration because the computation had not been properly examined. For alleged clandestine removal, the text emphasises that suspicion, solitary retracted statements and uncorroborated ledger entries cannot replace positive, independent evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466378</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>