<?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 (3) TMI 283 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54070</link>
    <description>Clearances of two units cannot be clubbed for central excise purposes to deny small-scale exemption unless the unit whose independence is questioned is issued a show cause notice and heard. The Tribunal held that where separate existence, premises and registrations are relied on, natural justice requires notice to the other unit before its clearances are treated as part of the assessee&#039;s turnover. The precedent on splitting notices was distinguished because both units had been served there, unlike the present case. The clubbing exercise was therefore vitiated for breach of natural justice, and the impugned order was set aside on that aspect, while the undisputed duty demand was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2024 16:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92547" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 283 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54070</link>
      <description>Clearances of two units cannot be clubbed for central excise purposes to deny small-scale exemption unless the unit whose independence is questioned is issued a show cause notice and heard. The Tribunal held that where separate existence, premises and registrations are relied on, natural justice requires notice to the other unit before its clearances are treated as part of the assessee&#039;s turnover. The precedent on splitting notices was distinguished because both units had been served there, unlike the present case. The clubbing exercise was therefore vitiated for breach of natural justice, and the impugned order was set aside on that aspect, while the undisputed duty demand was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54070</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>