<?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>2002 (8) TMI 197 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51546</link>
    <description>Where revenue alleges that one concern is a dummy or integrated unit to deny exemption or sustain duty, the alleged related unit must be put on notice and given an opportunity to meet the allegation; otherwise the demand, confiscation and penalties cannot stand. The record showed separate registrations, returns, statutory compliances, premises and prior departmental dealings, which undermined the claim that the other concern was non-existent. The Department&#039;s prior inspections and receipt of declarations also meant suppression or wilful misstatement was not established, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked and the demand was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 19:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90024" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 197 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51546</link>
      <description>Where revenue alleges that one concern is a dummy or integrated unit to deny exemption or sustain duty, the alleged related unit must be put on notice and given an opportunity to meet the allegation; otherwise the demand, confiscation and penalties cannot stand. The record showed separate registrations, returns, statutory compliances, premises and prior departmental dealings, which undermined the claim that the other concern was non-existent. The Department&#039;s prior inspections and receipt of declarations also meant suppression or wilful misstatement was not established, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked and the demand was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51546</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>