https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245264 Clearances made by M/s. Pearl Pack before 31.03.2005 could not be attributed to the respondent where the record showed Pearl Pack functioning as an independent manufacturing unit. Documentary material, including labour settlement papers, machinery and generator expense records, balance sheet entries, income tax returns, and statements recorded during investigation, supported separate manufacturing activity. The duty demand for the earlier period was based mainly on presumptions and lacked direct, positive evidence to displace the documentary record accepted by the first appellate authority. On that basis, the pre-31.03.2005 demand could not be sustained against the respondent and the corresponding penalty also failed. en-us Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245264 Clearances made by M/s. Pearl Pack before 31.03.2005 could not be attributed to the respondent where the record showed Pearl Pack functioning as an independent manufacturing unit. Documentary material, including labour settlement papers, machinery and generator expense records, balance sheet entries, income tax returns, and statements recorded during investigation, supported separate manufacturing activity. The duty demand for the earlier period was based mainly on presumptions and lacked direct, positive evidence to displace the documentary record accepted by the first appellate authority. On that basis, the pre-31.03.2005 demand could not be sustained against the respondent and the corresponding penalty also failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245264