https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107284 Clearances of two manufacturing units could not be clubbed to deny exemption under Notification No. 1/93 where each unit was separately registered, maintained separate accounts, and was treated as an independent concern by excise, income-tax, sales tax and banking records. Although both units operated from the same premises, separate entrances and a distinct operational set-up supported their independence. The familial link between the proprietor of one unit and a partner in the other was insufficient to show that the concerns were ively one. Clubbing requires evidence of financial intermingling or mutual dependence, and absent such proof the units were entitled to separate treatment. en-us Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:24:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107284 Clearances of two manufacturing units could not be clubbed to deny exemption under Notification No. 1/93 where each unit was separately registered, maintained separate accounts, and was treated as an independent concern by excise, income-tax, sales tax and banking records. Although both units operated from the same premises, separate entrances and a distinct operational set-up supported their independence. The familial link between the proprietor of one unit and a partner in the other was insufficient to show that the concerns were ively one. Clubbing requires evidence of financial intermingling or mutual dependence, and absent such proof the units were entitled to separate treatment. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107284