https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110288 Exemption under the relevant excise notifications depended on a premises employing fewer than the prescribed number of workers, not on the status of the manufacturer alone. Clubbing of clearances was unwarranted because the record did not establish that the two partnership units were one and the same, or that either unit was a dummy, shadow, or extension of the other. Common features such as partners, accountant, trade mark, or telephone numbers were insufficient without cogent supporting evidence. The clearances therefore remained separate and the exemption already granted was sustained. en-us Fri, 12 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:14:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110288 Exemption under the relevant excise notifications depended on a premises employing fewer than the prescribed number of workers, not on the status of the manufacturer alone. Clubbing of clearances was unwarranted because the record did not establish that the two partnership units were one and the same, or that either unit was a dummy, shadow, or extension of the other. Common features such as partners, accountant, trade mark, or telephone numbers were insufficient without cogent supporting evidence. The clearances therefore remained separate and the exemption already granted was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110288