https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75323 Three smaller manufacturing units could not be treated as dummy or sham units of the main manufacturer because the record showed separate machinery, separate electricity connections, separate registrations, and actual manufacture from the raw-material stage. Transactions between the units were supported by invoices and accounts and were treated as principal-to-principal. As the relied-upon documents were not tested by statements and the allegations of common control and financial accommodation remained unproved, there was no basis to ignore their separate legal existence or club their clearances. The small scale exemption under Notification No. 231/85 therefore could not be denied. en-us Tue, 26 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75323 Three smaller manufacturing units could not be treated as dummy or sham units of the main manufacturer because the record showed separate machinery, separate electricity connections, separate registrations, and actual manufacture from the raw-material stage. Transactions between the units were supported by invoices and accounts and were treated as principal-to-principal. As the relied-upon documents were not tested by statements and the allegations of common control and financial accommodation remained unproved, there was no basis to ignore their separate legal existence or club their clearances. The small scale exemption under Notification No. 231/85 therefore could not be denied. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75323