<?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>2005 (1) TMI 191 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53821</link>
    <description>Clubbing of SSI clearances is confined to the statutory situations where one manufacturer clears goods from multiple factories or multiple manufacturers clear from the same factory; common management, mutual interest, or a common brand name alone do not justify clubbing of two separate private limited companies. A demand for duty, interest, and penalty based on alleged clandestine removal must rest on reliable corroborative evidence, not merely on a private computer sheet or discrepancies in raw material accounts. In the absence of supporting evidence such as buyer statements, abnormal power use, or other independent investigation, private records and unexplained discrepancies are insufficient to sustain the demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2024 12:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92298" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 191 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53821</link>
      <description>Clubbing of SSI clearances is confined to the statutory situations where one manufacturer clears goods from multiple factories or multiple manufacturers clear from the same factory; common management, mutual interest, or a common brand name alone do not justify clubbing of two separate private limited companies. A demand for duty, interest, and penalty based on alleged clandestine removal must rest on reliable corroborative evidence, not merely on a private computer sheet or discrepancies in raw material accounts. In the absence of supporting evidence such as buyer statements, abnormal power use, or other independent investigation, private records and unexplained discrepancies are insufficient to sustain the demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>