https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107310 Exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. could not be denied merely because labels bearing another concern's brand name were affixed by a separate unit, where the allegation that the unit was a dummy concern was neither pleaded nor proved. The existence of distinct partners or a common premises did not by itself justify disregarding separate identity. Clearances of two independently existing units operating from the same factory premises also could not be clubbed with the appellant's clearances for the monetary limit, because the notification did not permit aggregation absent legal grounds. The demand and penalties were therefore set aside. en-us Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:19:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107310 Exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. could not be denied merely because labels bearing another concern's brand name were affixed by a separate unit, where the allegation that the unit was a dummy concern was neither pleaded nor proved. The existence of distinct partners or a common premises did not by itself justify disregarding separate identity. Clearances of two independently existing units operating from the same factory premises also could not be clubbed with the appellant's clearances for the monetary limit, because the notification did not permit aggregation absent legal grounds. The demand and penalties were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107310