Independent manufacturing unit status defeated revenue objection where funding alone did not prove a dummy concern.

Mere financial funding by another entity is insufficient, without supporting evidence, to treat an assessee as a dummy or non-existent manufacturing unit. Where central excise registration has been granted and manufacture is established, those facts support independent unit status and entitlement to the associated capital goods credit. On the stated facts, the denial of benefit on the ground that the unit lacked independent existence could not be sustained, and the revenue's objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was an independent manufacturing unit entitled to the benefit of central excise registration and consequential capital goods credit, or whether it was merely a creation of another company so as to deny the credit.

Analysis: The allegation that the appellant was only a dummy or bubble concern was not supported by evidence. Funding by another entity, by itself, was held to be insufficient to conclude that the appellant had no independent existence. The fact that central excise registration had been granted and manufacture was established supported the appellant's stand that it was an independent unit.

Conclusion: The appellant was held to be an independent unit, and the denial of benefit on the basis that it was not so could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the revenue's objection failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere financial funding, without supporting evidence of non-existence or lack of independent manufacture, is insufficient to deny recognition of an assessee as an independent manufacturing unit.

---