https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356556 Clubbing of clearances for denial of SSI exemption was not justified where two units used a common expression that formed part of their name rather than another person's registered brand name. Separate statutory registration, distinct manufacturing facilities, absence of reliable proof of common workers, and only occasional inter-unit fund transfers did not show that either concern was a sham or dummy unit. CESTAT held that clubbing requires a clear finding that one unit lacks independent existence, which was not established. The demand was therefore unsustainable and the denial of SSI exemption was unwarranted; Revenue's appeal was rejected. en-us Mon, 26 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356556 Clubbing of clearances for denial of SSI exemption was not justified where two units used a common expression that formed part of their name rather than another person's registered brand name. Separate statutory registration, distinct manufacturing facilities, absence of reliable proof of common workers, and only occasional inter-unit fund transfers did not show that either concern was a sham or dummy unit. CESTAT held that clubbing requires a clear finding that one unit lacks independent existence, which was not established. The demand was therefore unsustainable and the denial of SSI exemption was unwarranted; Revenue's appeal was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356556