https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357838 Clearances of two separately registered manufacturing units could not be clubbed merely because they operated from the same premises and had a common partnership. The appellate authority found no evidence of common funding, financial flow-back, mutuality of business interest, or profit movement between the units, and separate income tax and sales tax registrations supported their independent existence. Mere common ownership structure was insufficient to treat one unit as a dummy of the other. On that basis, both units remained entitled separately to the exemption under Notification No. 8/2003, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2018 07:07:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357838 Clearances of two separately registered manufacturing units could not be clubbed merely because they operated from the same premises and had a common partnership. The appellate authority found no evidence of common funding, financial flow-back, mutuality of business interest, or profit movement between the units, and separate income tax and sales tax registrations supported their independent existence. Mere common ownership structure was insufficient to treat one unit as a dummy of the other. On that basis, both units remained entitled separately to the exemption under Notification No. 8/2003, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357838