https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107769 Clubbing of clearances to deny the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 requires cogent evidence that the units are not independent and that one is only a dummy or floated concern of the other. On the record, the separate existence of the two units was accepted because there was no sufficient proof of common financial control, absence of infrastructure, or other determinative factors justifying clubbing, so the duty demand and penalty based on aggregation of clearances failed. The fresh adjudication on remand was also treated as a proper de novo determination because it complied with the earlier direction, was reasoned, and was supported by the record, so no further remand was warranted. en-us Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:54:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107769 Clubbing of clearances to deny the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 requires cogent evidence that the units are not independent and that one is only a dummy or floated concern of the other. On the record, the separate existence of the two units was accepted because there was no sufficient proof of common financial control, absence of infrastructure, or other determinative factors justifying clubbing, so the duty demand and penalty based on aggregation of clearances failed. The fresh adjudication on remand was also treated as a proper de novo determination because it complied with the earlier direction, was reasoned, and was supported by the record, so no further remand was warranted. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107769