https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115562 Penalty under central excise law was upheld because the assessee failed to prove that trading and manufacturing activities were carried on in separate premises. The plea of distinct adjoining units was rejected for want of corroborative evidence: two entrances alone did not establish physical separation, the premises carried one property number, no intervening wall or other tangible separation was shown, and the alleged tenancy of part of the building remained unproved. On these facts, the trading and manufacturing operations were treated as having been conducted in the same premises without departmental permission, justifying the penalty. en-us Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 May 2012 10:20:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115562 Penalty under central excise law was upheld because the assessee failed to prove that trading and manufacturing activities were carried on in separate premises. The plea of distinct adjoining units was rejected for want of corroborative evidence: two entrances alone did not establish physical separation, the premises carried one property number, no intervening wall or other tangible separation was shown, and the alleged tenancy of part of the building remained unproved. On these facts, the trading and manufacturing operations were treated as having been conducted in the same premises without departmental permission, justifying the penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115562