https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340095 Clearances of three units could not be clubbed for denying exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE and Notification No. 1/93-CE merely because the units were under common family control. The units were established at different times, operated from separate premises in the same industrial estate, and held separate registrations, which supported their factual distinctness. Revenue failed to prove common control, interdependence, or a device to split clearances for wrongful exemption. The Board circular and the cited Supreme Court decision did not alter that factual position, so clubbing was not justified and denial of exemption was unsustainable. en-us Fri, 17 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Aug 2017 15:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340095 Clearances of three units could not be clubbed for denying exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE and Notification No. 1/93-CE merely because the units were under common family control. The units were established at different times, operated from separate premises in the same industrial estate, and held separate registrations, which supported their factual distinctness. Revenue failed to prove common control, interdependence, or a device to split clearances for wrongful exemption. The Board circular and the cited Supreme Court decision did not alter that factual position, so clubbing was not justified and denial of exemption was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340095