https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165695 The court held that the manufacturer, owning multiple factories, should be considered a single entity for eligibility for the concessional rate of excise duty. The aggregation of clearances from both the Madras and Goa factories was required to determine eligibility. The court rejected the argument that separate licenses for different premises indicated separate manufacturers. The order by the Superintendent of Central Excise was upheld, stating the manufacturer at both locations was the same. Consequently, the petitioners' claim for a refund of Rs. 3,19,338.93 was dismissed, and the writ petition was rejected with costs awarded to the respondent. en-us Wed, 06 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Aug 2014 15:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165695 The court held that the manufacturer, owning multiple factories, should be considered a single entity for eligibility for the concessional rate of excise duty. The aggregation of clearances from both the Madras and Goa factories was required to determine eligibility. The court rejected the argument that separate licenses for different premises indicated separate manufacturers. The order by the Superintendent of Central Excise was upheld, stating the manufacturer at both locations was the same. Consequently, the petitioners' claim for a refund of Rs. 3,19,338.93 was dismissed, and the writ petition was rejected with costs awarded to the respondent. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165695