https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83997 Common managerial links, shared premises, shared telephone, employee overlap and job-work arrangements do not by themselves justify clubbing clearances under central excise exemption notifications. The Tribunal's reasoning was that clubbing requires proof that one unit is a sham or camouflage of the other, supported by financial flowback, profit sharing, or creation solely to evade duty; those elements were not shown. It also held that extended limitation could not be invoked where correspondence, inspections and disclosures had already placed the department on notice, so suppression and clandestine removal were not established. On the record, the proceedings were not saved by remand because the material was complete and notice to the controlling company had not been properly taken. en-us Fri, 20 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:43:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83997 Common managerial links, shared premises, shared telephone, employee overlap and job-work arrangements do not by themselves justify clubbing clearances under central excise exemption notifications. The Tribunal's reasoning was that clubbing requires proof that one unit is a sham or camouflage of the other, supported by financial flowback, profit sharing, or creation solely to evade duty; those elements were not shown. It also held that extended limitation could not be invoked where correspondence, inspections and disclosures had already placed the department on notice, so suppression and clandestine removal were not established. On the record, the proceedings were not saved by remand because the material was complete and notice to the controlling company had not been properly taken. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83997