<?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 (7) TMI 241 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54540</link>
    <description>Separate SSI and Central Excise registrations, independent books, audited accounts, purchases, sales, labour and supervisors, and distinct locations supported recognition of the four units as separate entities; mere common control was insufficient to treat them as dummy units, so the clubbing case, clandestine removal demand, confiscation and related penalties could not survive. The demand was also vulnerable because the show cause notice and confirmed demand were inconsistent, and the department already knew the relevant facts from earlier proceedings, negating suppression and extended limitation. On that basis, the demand, interest and penalty were held unsustainable and the adjudication order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Apr 2024 13:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93017" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 241 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54540</link>
      <description>Separate SSI and Central Excise registrations, independent books, audited accounts, purchases, sales, labour and supervisors, and distinct locations supported recognition of the four units as separate entities; mere common control was insufficient to treat them as dummy units, so the clubbing case, clandestine removal demand, confiscation and related penalties could not survive. The demand was also vulnerable because the show cause notice and confirmed demand were inconsistent, and the department already knew the relevant facts from earlier proceedings, negating suppression and extended limitation. On that basis, the demand, interest and penalty were held unsustainable and the adjudication order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54540</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>