https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184549 Closely related units operating in the same compound with shared utilities, security and complementary processing were treated as a single composite factory, as the arrangement was found to be a facade for securing excise exemption. The demand mechanism under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A was upheld in principle, and the extended period and allegations of suppression were accepted. However, the quantified duty demand could not be sustained as framed because the notice, revised annexures and adjudication materials did not disclose a clear and intelligible basis for computation. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with proper disclosure of the valuation and calculation details. en-us Mon, 22 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:05:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184549 Closely related units operating in the same compound with shared utilities, security and complementary processing were treated as a single composite factory, as the arrangement was found to be a facade for securing excise exemption. The demand mechanism under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A was upheld in principle, and the extended period and allegations of suppression were accepted. However, the quantified duty demand could not be sustained as framed because the notice, revised annexures and adjudication materials did not disclose a clear and intelligible basis for computation. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with proper disclosure of the valuation and calculation details. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 22 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184549