<?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>2026 (4) TMI 995 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789926</link>
    <description>SSI exemption could not be denied to an entity that was not made a noticee in the show cause notice, and clubbing its clearances with those of the noticee was beyond the scope of the proceedings. Because the clubbing itself was unsustainable in law, the duty demand raised on that basis could not be maintained. The consequential interest and penalties also fell with the main demand, as they were founded on the same defective premise. The appeals were therefore allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 08:21:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 995 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789926</link>
      <description>SSI exemption could not be denied to an entity that was not made a noticee in the show cause notice, and clubbing its clearances with those of the noticee was beyond the scope of the proceedings. Because the clubbing itself was unsustainable in law, the duty demand raised on that basis could not be maintained. The consequential interest and penalties also fell with the main demand, as they were founded on the same defective premise. The appeals were therefore allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789926</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>