https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1389 Common control, financial interlacing, and the absence of true independence between husband-and-wife proprietary concerns justified clubbing of their clearances. Clandestine production and removal were also established on the basis of non-accountal of raw materials, fictitious purchases, missing RG-1 entries, removals without gate passes, undervaluation, and unaccounted sale proceeds; the demand was sustained after conservative re-quantification with cum-duty benefit. A separate penalty on the proprietor under Rule 209A could not stand where the proprietary concern and proprietor were treated as one for penal purposes, so that penalty was set aside. en-us Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1389 Common control, financial interlacing, and the absence of true independence between husband-and-wife proprietary concerns justified clubbing of their clearances. Clandestine production and removal were also established on the basis of non-accountal of raw materials, fictitious purchases, missing RG-1 entries, removals without gate passes, undervaluation, and unaccounted sale proceeds; the demand was sustained after conservative re-quantification with cum-duty benefit. A separate penalty on the proprietor under Rule 209A could not stand where the proprietary concern and proprietor were treated as one for penal purposes, so that penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1389