https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73239 An excise exemption could not be denied merely because four powerloom concerns shared premises, staff, funds, packing and sales arrangements. Although common purchases, pooled yarn and a shared manager were examined, the record showed the units were separately licensed, separately assessed and separately recognised, with utilisation accounted for separately and the pooling commercially explained. Those facts were insufficient to prove that the concerns had lost their separate identity or were in substance a single manufacturing entity formed to claim exemption. The exemption therefore remained admissible, and the related duty demand, confiscation and penalties could not stand. en-us Tue, 19 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 May 2011 15:23:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73239 An excise exemption could not be denied merely because four powerloom concerns shared premises, staff, funds, packing and sales arrangements. Although common purchases, pooled yarn and a shared manager were examined, the record showed the units were separately licensed, separately assessed and separately recognised, with utilisation accounted for separately and the pooling commercially explained. Those facts were insufficient to prove that the concerns had lost their separate identity or were in substance a single manufacturing entity formed to claim exemption. The exemption therefore remained admissible, and the related duty demand, confiscation and penalties could not stand. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73239