https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83241 A partnership concern was not treated as a dummy unit for small-scale exemption purposes because it was duly constituted, held an excise licence, had manufacturing machinery, issued goods under gate passes, and filed classification lists and RT-12 returns. No substantive evidence showed financial inter-connection with the proprietary concerns, and there was no worker or buyer evidence to prove it was merely an extension of those units. Common branding, family ownership, loan dealings, or shared orders were held insufficient by themselves to justify clubbing of clearances. In the absence of proof beyond suspicion of tax avoidance, clubbing was not sustainable and the partnership's clearances were kept separate. en-us Thu, 28 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:35:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83241 A partnership concern was not treated as a dummy unit for small-scale exemption purposes because it was duly constituted, held an excise licence, had manufacturing machinery, issued goods under gate passes, and filed classification lists and RT-12 returns. No substantive evidence showed financial inter-connection with the proprietary concerns, and there was no worker or buyer evidence to prove it was merely an extension of those units. Common branding, family ownership, loan dealings, or shared orders were held insufficient by themselves to justify clubbing of clearances. In the absence of proof beyond suspicion of tax avoidance, clubbing was not sustainable and the partnership's clearances were kept separate. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83241