https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84947 Clearances of separate partnership firms could not be clubbed for central excise where each unit had independent registrations and SSI recognition, and the Department failed to prove common funding, financial interdependence or flow-back of profits. Common partners, premises, workers or machinery were insufficient by themselves to treat the firms as one manufacturer absent evidence of common financial control and domination. On that basis, each unit remained separately entitled to exemption under the relevant notification, and the demand founded on clubbing, together with the consequential penalty, was held unsustainable. en-us Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:08:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84947 Clearances of separate partnership firms could not be clubbed for central excise where each unit had independent registrations and SSI recognition, and the Department failed to prove common funding, financial interdependence or flow-back of profits. Common partners, premises, workers or machinery were insufficient by themselves to treat the firms as one manufacturer absent evidence of common financial control and domination. On that basis, each unit remained separately entitled to exemption under the relevant notification, and the demand founded on clubbing, together with the consequential penalty, was held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84947