https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93014 Exemption under Notification No. 253/89-C.E. depended on the processes being carried out in the "same factory", not merely on common ownership or management by the same manufacturer. Where the record showed that the units were located at different places and processing was undertaken in separate factories, the notification could not be read as if "same factory" meant "same manufacturer". On that basis, the exemption could not be denied solely because the two units belonged to the same manufacturer. en-us Wed, 11 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Nov 2011 16:48:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93014 Exemption under Notification No. 253/89-C.E. depended on the processes being carried out in the "same factory", not merely on common ownership or management by the same manufacturer. Where the record showed that the units were located at different places and processing was undertaken in separate factories, the notification could not be read as if "same factory" meant "same manufacturer". On that basis, the exemption could not be denied solely because the two units belonged to the same manufacturer. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93014