https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166586 Separately constituted partnership firms with identical partners were treated as distinct manufacturers for excise exemption purposes, because each firm had separate existence, registrations and licences. On that basis, clearances from their different factories could not be clubbed for the limits under Notifications No. 89/79 and 105/80. The extended limitation under Section 11A was unavailable where the department already knew of the common partners and separate constitutions, so notices beyond the ordinary period were time-barred. Once aggregation failed, alleged rule contraventions and related penalty foundation also fell away. Territorial jurisdiction was not defeated merely because the factories were in different jurisdictions. en-us Thu, 07 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Oct 2014 17:23:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166586 Separately constituted partnership firms with identical partners were treated as distinct manufacturers for excise exemption purposes, because each firm had separate existence, registrations and licences. On that basis, clearances from their different factories could not be clubbed for the limits under Notifications No. 89/79 and 105/80. The extended limitation under Section 11A was unavailable where the department already knew of the common partners and separate constitutions, so notices beyond the ordinary period were time-barred. Once aggregation failed, alleged rule contraventions and related penalty foundation also fell away. Territorial jurisdiction was not defeated merely because the factories were in different jurisdictions. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166586