<?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 (4) TMI 128 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54031</link>
    <description>Clubbing of clearances to deny small scale industry exemption requires a specific foundational allegation and supporting evidence that the units are not independent, such as dummy character, mutuality of interest, or financial flow-back. Where the show cause notice does not plead that basis and the adjudication travels beyond the notice, clubbing cannot be sustained. Here, the units were in separate premises with separate registrations, and no evidence established financial flow-back, power of attorney, or other material to treat the sister concern as a dummy unit. The clearances therefore could not be clubbed, the exemption limit was not crossed, and the duty demand and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:53:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92508" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 128 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54031</link>
      <description>Clubbing of clearances to deny small scale industry exemption requires a specific foundational allegation and supporting evidence that the units are not independent, such as dummy character, mutuality of interest, or financial flow-back. Where the show cause notice does not plead that basis and the adjudication travels beyond the notice, clubbing cannot be sustained. Here, the units were in separate premises with separate registrations, and no evidence established financial flow-back, power of attorney, or other material to treat the sister concern as a dummy unit. The clearances therefore could not be clubbed, the exemption limit was not crossed, and the duty demand and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>