https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74856 Penalty under Central Excise law could not be sustained because the allegations of clandestine manufacture, common control and a fictitious second unit were not proved by reliable evidence. The record showed two legally separate concerns with separate excise registrations and licences, and those formal separations could not be ignored merely because the entities were related. Assertions that one individual controlled both units, used a fictitious name, signed invoices for both concerns, or that the second unit had no machinery were not established by proper material, panchnama or admissible evidence. The adverse findings were therefore based on conjecture and unverified assumptions, and the penalty against both appellants was set aside. en-us Mon, 13 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:27:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74856 Penalty under Central Excise law could not be sustained because the allegations of clandestine manufacture, common control and a fictitious second unit were not proved by reliable evidence. The record showed two legally separate concerns with separate excise registrations and licences, and those formal separations could not be ignored merely because the entities were related. Assertions that one individual controlled both units, used a fictitious name, signed invoices for both concerns, or that the second unit had no machinery were not established by proper material, panchnama or admissible evidence. The adverse findings were therefore based on conjecture and unverified assumptions, and the penalty against both appellants was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74856