https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85448 Clearances of one unit could not be clubbed with another merely because of shared personnel, an electricity arrangement, or some common paperwork. The two concerns were separately recognised legal entities, and that supported distinct identity. Suspicion arising from missing machinery for larger valves or signed test certificates was insufficient without positive evidence of clandestine manufacture or removal. In the absence of proof that buyers dealt only with one concern, that the other was a dummy unit, or that there was mutual financial control and flow back of funds, the corporate veil could not be lifted. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable. en-us Wed, 15 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:12:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85448 Clearances of one unit could not be clubbed with another merely because of shared personnel, an electricity arrangement, or some common paperwork. The two concerns were separately recognised legal entities, and that supported distinct identity. Suspicion arising from missing machinery for larger valves or signed test certificates was insufficient without positive evidence of clandestine manufacture or removal. In the absence of proof that buyers dealt only with one concern, that the other was a dummy unit, or that there was mutual financial control and flow back of funds, the corporate veil could not be lifted. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 15 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85448