<?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>2000 (11) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50083</link>
    <description>Clubbing the clearances of two separately projected units to deny small-scale exemption required notice to both units before duty could be demanded. Where no show cause notice was issued to the other unit whose clearances were included in the aggregation, the proceedings were defective and could not be sustained. The demand and penalty were set aside as bad in law for want of notice to the other unit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:41:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50083</link>
      <description>Clubbing the clearances of two separately projected units to deny small-scale exemption required notice to both units before duty could be demanded. Where no show cause notice was issued to the other unit whose clearances were included in the aggregation, the proceedings were defective and could not be sustained. The demand and penalty were set aside as bad in law for want of notice to the other unit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50083</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>