https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76998 A corrigendum issued by a Superintendent was upheld as valid because the officer had jurisdiction to issue it. On excise clubbing, the units were treated as interdependent and under common control because they had common partners from the same family, used the same brand name, operated from the same premises, and maintained common management and accounts. On those facts, their clearances could be clubbed for duty purposes, and the revenue challenge to that basis failed. en-us Wed, 05 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76998 A corrigendum issued by a Superintendent was upheld as valid because the officer had jurisdiction to issue it. On excise clubbing, the units were treated as interdependent and under common control because they had common partners from the same family, used the same brand name, operated from the same premises, and maintained common management and accounts. On those facts, their clearances could be clubbed for duty purposes, and the revenue challenge to that basis failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76998