https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81540 An exemption claim for goods cleared in the name of a sister concern was rejected where both concerns operated from the same factory premises, the second concern had no independent infrastructure, and the record did not establish two separate units for central excise purposes. Misleading declaration details, including a non-existent door number and nondisclosure of use of the appellant's facilities, were treated as suppression of material facts, justifying invocation of the extended limitation period. The duty demand was sustained, while the penalty was reduced because the unit was small and the duty involved was limited. en-us Thu, 04 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:09:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81540 An exemption claim for goods cleared in the name of a sister concern was rejected where both concerns operated from the same factory premises, the second concern had no independent infrastructure, and the record did not establish two separate units for central excise purposes. Misleading declaration details, including a non-existent door number and nondisclosure of use of the appellant's facilities, were treated as suppression of material facts, justifying invocation of the extended limitation period. The duty demand was sustained, while the penalty was reduced because the unit was small and the duty involved was limited. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81540