https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94740 Denial of exemption under Notification Nos. 105/80 and 77/83 was unsustainable because the evidence showed separate manufacturing units occupying an adjacent shed, with one unit leasing part of the premises and machinery to the other; common boundary wall and a single power connection were insufficient to prove one manufacturer, financial interlocking, or complete identity of interest. The duty demand on 3,463 crank shafts also failed because the substitution allegation was not supported by the panchnama or contemporaneous statements, and no satisfactory enquiry established clandestine removal. As the duty demand failed, the related penalty and confiscation also could not stand. The impugned order was set aside in full. en-us Tue, 16 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Dec 2011 14:54:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94740 Denial of exemption under Notification Nos. 105/80 and 77/83 was unsustainable because the evidence showed separate manufacturing units occupying an adjacent shed, with one unit leasing part of the premises and machinery to the other; common boundary wall and a single power connection were insufficient to prove one manufacturer, financial interlocking, or complete identity of interest. The duty demand on 3,463 crank shafts also failed because the substitution allegation was not supported by the panchnama or contemporaneous statements, and no satisfactory enquiry established clandestine removal. As the duty demand failed, the related penalty and confiscation also could not stand. The impugned order was set aside in full. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94740