https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236780 Clearances of two separately registered manufacturing units could not be clubbed for central excise duty merely because they shared common ownership, management, facilities, staff, records, or brand use. Separate registration with multiple authorities and the presence of machinery and infrastructure for manufacture supported their independence. The decisive factor was the absence of evidence of financial flow back or financial interdependence; without proof that either unit was a dummy or non-existent concern, clubbing was not justified. The revenue's demand therefore was not sustainable. en-us Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236780 Clearances of two separately registered manufacturing units could not be clubbed for central excise duty merely because they shared common ownership, management, facilities, staff, records, or brand use. Separate registration with multiple authorities and the presence of machinery and infrastructure for manufacture supported their independence. The decisive factor was the absence of evidence of financial flow back or financial interdependence; without proof that either unit was a dummy or non-existent concern, clubbing was not justified. The revenue's demand therefore was not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236780