https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82260 Common ownership links, shared premises, packing controls, raw-material supply and branding instructions were held insufficient, by themselves, to show that the appellants manufactured goods on behalf of another concern for purposes of Notification No. 85/85. The decisive test was whether the appellants acted on their own account on a principal-to-principal basis, and the record showed separate existence, separate operations and no clear evidence of dummy status or financial flow back. The department had also been informed of the relevant arrangement, so suppression was not established, and the demand was found time-barred. The impugned demand and denial of exemption were set aside. en-us Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jul 2011 18:55:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82260 Common ownership links, shared premises, packing controls, raw-material supply and branding instructions were held insufficient, by themselves, to show that the appellants manufactured goods on behalf of another concern for purposes of Notification No. 85/85. The decisive test was whether the appellants acted on their own account on a principal-to-principal basis, and the record showed separate existence, separate operations and no clear evidence of dummy status or financial flow back. The department had also been informed of the relevant arrangement, so suppression was not established, and the demand was found time-barred. The impugned demand and denial of exemption were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82260