<?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 (12) TMI 130 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51644</link>
    <description>Units operating under common control, with interlaced finance, management, raw-material supply and administrative supervision, were treated as a facade to preserve exemption eligibility, so their clearances were clubbed for excise purposes. Duty computation was required to be reconsidered by applying the relevant small-scale exemption notifications where aggregate clearances remained within prescribed limits, and Modvat credit on eligible inputs was to be allowed. The question of extended limitation was remanded for fresh examination. Confiscation of goods not covered by the show cause notice, and penalty under Rule 209A without invocation in the notice, were not sustainable; confiscation of unauthorisedly removed goods was sustained with reduced redemption fine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:26:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90122" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 130 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51644</link>
      <description>Units operating under common control, with interlaced finance, management, raw-material supply and administrative supervision, were treated as a facade to preserve exemption eligibility, so their clearances were clubbed for excise purposes. Duty computation was required to be reconsidered by applying the relevant small-scale exemption notifications where aggregate clearances remained within prescribed limits, and Modvat credit on eligible inputs was to be allowed. The question of extended limitation was remanded for fresh examination. Confiscation of goods not covered by the show cause notice, and penalty under Rule 209A without invocation in the notice, were not sustainable; confiscation of unauthorisedly removed goods was sustained with reduced redemption fine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51644</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>