https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393685 Greater evidentiary weight was given to the report based on actual inspection of machinery, so the allegation that Unit Nos. II and III lacked manufacturing facility was not proved and the demand against Unit No. I on that basis failed. Clubbing of clearances was also rejected because family relationship, common premises and unsecured loans did not, by themselves, establish that the units were one entity or that there was integrated evasion. As the Revenue did not show reliable proof of non-manufacture or clandestine removal, the penalties on all appellants were held unsustainable and the demand was set aside with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 02 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Mar 2020 10:42:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393685 Greater evidentiary weight was given to the report based on actual inspection of machinery, so the allegation that Unit Nos. II and III lacked manufacturing facility was not proved and the demand against Unit No. I on that basis failed. Clubbing of clearances was also rejected because family relationship, common premises and unsecured loans did not, by themselves, establish that the units were one entity or that there was integrated evasion. As the Revenue did not show reliable proof of non-manufacture or clandestine removal, the penalties on all appellants were held unsustainable and the demand was set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393685