<?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 (5) TMI 1658 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792455</link>
    <description>Clearances of alleged sister concerns cannot be clubbed with an assessee&#039;s turnover for SSI exemption denial unless the other units are put on notice and their independent status is examined; on the facts, separate premises, registrations, bank accounts, electricity connections and returns pointed against treating them as dummy units, so the clubbing-based duty demand failed. Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal must rest on cogent independent evidence; retracted statements, notebooks and buyer statements, without corroboration such as raw-material discrepancies, excess power use, transport, delivery or sale proceeds, were insufficient, so the charge was rejected. Confiscation and personal penalties under the Central Excise Rules also fell once the demand and confiscation foundation failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 13:12:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904405" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 1658 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792455</link>
      <description>Clearances of alleged sister concerns cannot be clubbed with an assessee&#039;s turnover for SSI exemption denial unless the other units are put on notice and their independent status is examined; on the facts, separate premises, registrations, bank accounts, electricity connections and returns pointed against treating them as dummy units, so the clubbing-based duty demand failed. Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal must rest on cogent independent evidence; retracted statements, notebooks and buyer statements, without corroboration such as raw-material discrepancies, excess power use, transport, delivery or sale proceeds, were insufficient, so the charge was rejected. Confiscation and personal penalties under the Central Excise Rules also fell once the demand and confiscation foundation failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>