<?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>2004 (8) TMI 299 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53669</link>
    <description>Separate private limited companies are to be treated as distinct manufacturers for excise exemption purposes in the absence of mutuality of interest and financial flow back, so clubbing of clearances for denial of small scale exemption was not sustainable. On the alleged clandestine removal and undervaluation demand, the record indicated that the defence had produced evidence of comparable sales to other dealers and correlation of proforma invoices, delivery challans and duty-paid invoices, but this material was not properly examined before confirmation of demand and penalties. The disputed demand was therefore remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:20:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92146" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 299 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53669</link>
      <description>Separate private limited companies are to be treated as distinct manufacturers for excise exemption purposes in the absence of mutuality of interest and financial flow back, so clubbing of clearances for denial of small scale exemption was not sustainable. On the alleged clandestine removal and undervaluation demand, the record indicated that the defence had produced evidence of comparable sales to other dealers and correlation of proforma invoices, delivery challans and duty-paid invoices, but this material was not properly examined before confirmation of demand and penalties. The disputed demand was therefore remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53669</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>