https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94176 Two separately registered small-scale units could not have their clearances clubbed for exemption purposes merely because they used similar brand names, had related partners, or purchased inputs commonly. The units were separate partnership firms with distinct premises, plant and machinery, registrations, banking arrangements, fiscal set-up, manufacture, and sales. Clubbing required the department to prove, on the totality of circumstances and on a preponderance of probability, that the units were in substance one, a dummy arrangement, or involved common control, commonality of interest, or financial flow-back. That burden was not discharged, and the units were to be treated independently for exemption. en-us Wed, 23 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:59:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94176 Two separately registered small-scale units could not have their clearances clubbed for exemption purposes merely because they used similar brand names, had related partners, or purchased inputs commonly. The units were separate partnership firms with distinct premises, plant and machinery, registrations, banking arrangements, fiscal set-up, manufacture, and sales. Clubbing required the department to prove, on the totality of circumstances and on a preponderance of probability, that the units were in substance one, a dummy arrangement, or involved common control, commonality of interest, or financial flow-back. That burden was not discharged, and the units were to be treated independently for exemption. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94176