https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86092 A coordinated arrangement between closely related firms, operating from the same premises and showing inconsistencies in machinery, raw materials, labour and production records, was treated as evidence that a sister concern was used as a device to continue clearances after the exemption threshold under Notification No. 80/80 had been crossed. The authority applied preponderance of probabilities to treat the appellants as the manufacturers, and the exemption claim failed. Objections to the show cause notice, alleged suppression, jurisdictional defects and breach of natural justice were also rejected because the record supported deliberate withholding of material facts and inaccurate accounts. Duty liability and penalty were therefore sustained. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:43:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86092 A coordinated arrangement between closely related firms, operating from the same premises and showing inconsistencies in machinery, raw materials, labour and production records, was treated as evidence that a sister concern was used as a device to continue clearances after the exemption threshold under Notification No. 80/80 had been crossed. The authority applied preponderance of probabilities to treat the appellants as the manufacturers, and the exemption claim failed. Objections to the show cause notice, alleged suppression, jurisdictional defects and breach of natural justice were also rejected because the record supported deliberate withholding of material facts and inaccurate accounts. Duty liability and penalty were therefore sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86092