https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109726 Distinct spinning and dyeing units were treated as separate factories for exemption purposes where contemporaneous resolutions, departmental notices, separate registration applications and related correspondence showed that the original unit had been bifurcated before the exemption was curtailed by amendment. Common ownership or management alone did not justify clubbing the units into one factory or denying the notification benefit. Earlier authorities supporting separate factory identity on similar facts were followed, while Revenue's cases were distinguished on their facts. The result was that the exemption remained available to the assessee and the confirmed demands were unsustainable. en-us Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:55:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109726 Distinct spinning and dyeing units were treated as separate factories for exemption purposes where contemporaneous resolutions, departmental notices, separate registration applications and related correspondence showed that the original unit had been bifurcated before the exemption was curtailed by amendment. Common ownership or management alone did not justify clubbing the units into one factory or denying the notification benefit. Earlier authorities supporting separate factory identity on similar facts were followed, while Revenue's cases were distinguished on their facts. The result was that the exemption remained available to the assessee and the confirmed demands were unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109726