https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116120 An exemption for auto-rickshaw manufacture under Notification No. 162/86-C.E. applied only where the chassis or other inputs were duty-paid and no modvat credit had been taken. The CESTAT noted that separate legal identity of related units could be ignored only on proof of mutuality of interest, integrality of operations and financial flow back; on the facts, the two concerns remained independent, so the exemption was available for that part of the dispute. For 64 auto-rickshaws, however, the manufacturer failed to produce reliable evidence that the chassis were duty-paid, and the demand was sustained because the notification benefit could not be invoked on unproven input duty status. en-us Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:28:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116120 An exemption for auto-rickshaw manufacture under Notification No. 162/86-C.E. applied only where the chassis or other inputs were duty-paid and no modvat credit had been taken. The CESTAT noted that separate legal identity of related units could be ignored only on proof of mutuality of interest, integrality of operations and financial flow back; on the facts, the two concerns remained independent, so the exemption was available for that part of the dispute. For 64 auto-rickshaws, however, the manufacturer failed to produce reliable evidence that the chassis were duty-paid, and the demand was sustained because the notification benefit could not be invoked on unproven input duty status. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116120