https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83179 Two separately incorporated companies could not have their clearances clubbed merely because they shared directors, shareholders, business dealings, or some managerial overlap. The Tribunal held that each company remains a separate juristic person, and lifting the corporate veil requires clear proof of fraud, tax evasion, dummy operations, or comparable exceptional circumstances. On the material relied upon, the department failed to establish that the second unit was a sham or that there was sufficient flowback or control to justify treating the units as one. The small scale industry exemption therefore could not be denied on a clubbing theory, and the demand for differential duty, confiscation, and penalty was unsustainable. en-us Mon, 30 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:27:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83179 Two separately incorporated companies could not have their clearances clubbed merely because they shared directors, shareholders, business dealings, or some managerial overlap. The Tribunal held that each company remains a separate juristic person, and lifting the corporate veil requires clear proof of fraud, tax evasion, dummy operations, or comparable exceptional circumstances. On the material relied upon, the department failed to establish that the second unit was a sham or that there was sufficient flowback or control to justify treating the units as one. The small scale industry exemption therefore could not be denied on a clubbing theory, and the demand for differential duty, confiscation, and penalty was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83179