https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80943 Clubbing of clearances was rejected because the two concerns operated from separate premises, with separate machinery, power, workers and records, and there was no proof of common funding or financial flowback. The allegation of fraud or wilful suppression in availing exemption failed because departmental knowledge of the relationship and the absence of evidence showing non-distinct units negatived suppression. The claim that unaccounted dyes were manufactured also failed, as stock records, registers, physical verification and investigation did not establish irregular production. The demand based on clubbing and alleged suppression was therefore unsustainable, and the exemption and consequential relief were maintained. en-us Fri, 09 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:35:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80943 Clubbing of clearances was rejected because the two concerns operated from separate premises, with separate machinery, power, workers and records, and there was no proof of common funding or financial flowback. The allegation of fraud or wilful suppression in availing exemption failed because departmental knowledge of the relationship and the absence of evidence showing non-distinct units negatived suppression. The claim that unaccounted dyes were manufactured also failed, as stock records, registers, physical verification and investigation did not establish irregular production. The demand based on clubbing and alleged suppression was therefore unsustainable, and the exemption and consequential relief were maintained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80943