https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74320 Clearances from two units of the same partnership concern were treated as clearances by one manufacturer for exemption purposes, so the turnover from both units had to be clubbed. The separate-entity argument failed because the notification applied to clearances by and on behalf of a manufacturer, not to each location as an independent entity. The article also states that goods assembled in one unit could not claim Notification No. 179/77 where component parts were made in another unit of the same manufacturer with the aid of power. For a power-based exemption, any power-assisted process carried on by the same manufacturer in relation to the end product defeated eligibility. en-us Mon, 27 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:33:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74320 Clearances from two units of the same partnership concern were treated as clearances by one manufacturer for exemption purposes, so the turnover from both units had to be clubbed. The separate-entity argument failed because the notification applied to clearances by and on behalf of a manufacturer, not to each location as an independent entity. The article also states that goods assembled in one unit could not claim Notification No. 179/77 where component parts were made in another unit of the same manufacturer with the aid of power. For a power-based exemption, any power-assisted process carried on by the same manufacturer in relation to the end product defeated eligibility. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74320