https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120281 Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. was factory-specific for paper and paperboard manufactured from the stage of pulp, subject to the prescribed conditions. Where two units operated in separate premises after a court-approved demerger under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, and each had separate excise and factory registrations, they were treated as independent factories. Common ownership, common boundaries, or inclusion in the same corporate group did not by themselves defeat the exemption if each unit was separately run and otherwise satisfied the notification requirements. On the stated facts, denial of the exemption was not justified, and the demand and penalties were held unsustainable. en-us Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:22:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120281 Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. was factory-specific for paper and paperboard manufactured from the stage of pulp, subject to the prescribed conditions. Where two units operated in separate premises after a court-approved demerger under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, and each had separate excise and factory registrations, they were treated as independent factories. Common ownership, common boundaries, or inclusion in the same corporate group did not by themselves defeat the exemption if each unit was separately run and otherwise satisfied the notification requirements. On the stated facts, denial of the exemption was not justified, and the demand and penalties were held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120281