https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84134 Two purportedly separate units were treated as one factory because they operated from the same premises with a common gate, shared machinery, painting facilities, electricity, workers, raw material purchases, accounts and stock control, and the purchase bills were found to be fake and manipulated. On those facts, the separate existence of the units was only on paper, so their clearances had to be clubbed as those of one manufacturer. As the aggregate clearances in the preceding year exceeded the prescribed small scale exemption limit, the benefit of Notification No. 64/83-C.E. was unavailable, and the demand of duty, penalty and redemption fine was sustained. en-us Wed, 15 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:32:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84134 Two purportedly separate units were treated as one factory because they operated from the same premises with a common gate, shared machinery, painting facilities, electricity, workers, raw material purchases, accounts and stock control, and the purchase bills were found to be fake and manipulated. On those facts, the separate existence of the units was only on paper, so their clearances had to be clubbed as those of one manufacturer. As the aggregate clearances in the preceding year exceeded the prescribed small scale exemption limit, the benefit of Notification No. 64/83-C.E. was unavailable, and the demand of duty, penalty and redemption fine was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 15 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84134