https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84715 Clearances of the five units could not be clubbed with the first appellant because the record did not establish that they were dummy or front concerns. The agreements showed restrictions on sale and technical know-how, but there was no evidence of common premises or telephone, raw material supply, financial assistance, control over management or production, profit flow-back, or decision-making. Separate registration as legal entities and the mere presence of common directors, negotiated pricing, or supply of goods to the first appellant were insufficient to treat the first appellant as the manufacturer. The exemption under Notification No. 80/80-C.E. therefore could not be denied, and penalty under Rule 173Q was not sustainable. en-us Wed, 11 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:38:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84715 Clearances of the five units could not be clubbed with the first appellant because the record did not establish that they were dummy or front concerns. The agreements showed restrictions on sale and technical know-how, but there was no evidence of common premises or telephone, raw material supply, financial assistance, control over management or production, profit flow-back, or decision-making. Separate registration as legal entities and the mere presence of common directors, negotiated pricing, or supply of goods to the first appellant were insufficient to treat the first appellant as the manufacturer. The exemption under Notification No. 80/80-C.E. therefore could not be denied, and penalty under Rule 173Q was not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84715