https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236878 Separate job-work units could not be clubbed for excise purposes where they had different partners, machinery, billing and assessment, and no proved financial flowback or common control. Retracted statements, supported by affidavits, were insufficiently rejected, and the remaining material did not establish use of power in mercerizing or stentering to the requisite standard. Baling and packing were also held not to amount to manufacture, as they caused no physical or chemical change and did not fall within the relevant deeming provision. On that reasoning, the excise demand and penalties were unsustainable. en-us Wed, 05 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:55:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236878 Separate job-work units could not be clubbed for excise purposes where they had different partners, machinery, billing and assessment, and no proved financial flowback or common control. Retracted statements, supported by affidavits, were insufficiently rejected, and the remaining material did not establish use of power in mercerizing or stentering to the requisite standard. Baling and packing were also held not to amount to manufacture, as they caused no physical or chemical change and did not fall within the relevant deeming provision. On that reasoning, the excise demand and penalties were unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236878