https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349739 Separately registered excise units cannot have their clearances clubbed merely because of common management, shared employees or use of common utilities; proof of mutuality of business interest or financial flow-back is required, and on the facts the units were found to have independent existence, different products and departmental registration after verification, so the allegation of dummy units failed. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the units had disclosed their existence through registration, returns and declarations and the relevant facts were already within departmental knowledge, so suppression was not established. The demand, interest and penalties were therefore unsustainable. en-us Mon, 16 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Feb 2019 14:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349739 Separately registered excise units cannot have their clearances clubbed merely because of common management, shared employees or use of common utilities; proof of mutuality of business interest or financial flow-back is required, and on the facts the units were found to have independent existence, different products and departmental registration after verification, so the allegation of dummy units failed. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the units had disclosed their existence through registration, returns and declarations and the relevant facts were already within departmental knowledge, so suppression was not established. The demand, interest and penalties were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 16 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349739