https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72240 A concern cannot be treated as a dummy or camouflage unit for excise purposes on suspicion alone; the Department must produce clear, cogent and independent evidence of sham ownership or control. Separate existence, distinct bank accounts, registrations and assessments weighed against the allegation, while mere goods or accounting entries at another premises were insufficient without corroboration from suppliers, employees or other independent material. On limitation, where the Department knew the relevant facts and proved no suppression or misdeclaration, the extended period could not be invoked and the demand was held time-barred under the normal limitation rule. en-us Thu, 02 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 May 2011 15:14:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72240 A concern cannot be treated as a dummy or camouflage unit for excise purposes on suspicion alone; the Department must produce clear, cogent and independent evidence of sham ownership or control. Separate existence, distinct bank accounts, registrations and assessments weighed against the allegation, while mere goods or accounting entries at another premises were insufficient without corroboration from suppliers, employees or other independent material. On limitation, where the Department knew the relevant facts and proved no suppression or misdeclaration, the extended period could not be invoked and the demand was held time-barred under the normal limitation rule. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72240