<?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 (9) TMI 212 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54954</link>
    <description>A duly incorporated company retains separate legal personality, and exemption cannot be denied by treating it as a facade or dummy unit of the holding company absent exceptional grounds. The record showed only a change in shareholding and long-standing business activity, which was insufficient to disregard corporate identity. Demand and penalty also could not survive because the relevant demand period predated incorporation, suppression or mens rea was not established, and the alleged brand-name bar was not shown to apply as the ABB brand was not proved on the final products. The denial of exemption and penalty were therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:50:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 212 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54954</link>
      <description>A duly incorporated company retains separate legal personality, and exemption cannot be denied by treating it as a facade or dummy unit of the holding company absent exceptional grounds. The record showed only a change in shareholding and long-standing business activity, which was insufficient to disregard corporate identity. Demand and penalty also could not survive because the relevant demand period predated incorporation, suppression or mens rea was not established, and the alleged brand-name bar was not shown to apply as the ABB brand was not proved on the final products. The denial of exemption and penalty were therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54954</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>