https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288573 Separate excise clearances of three cooler manufacturing units could not be clubbed because the record did not show sham existence, common funding, financial flow back, or other clinching evidence that two units were dummy concerns of the first. Common premises, shared brand, related proprietors, and assistance in procurement or marketing were treated as insufficient by themselves, so exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE remained available. The demand was also held to be time-barred because the department already knew of the manufacturing activity, had carried out inspections, and had received exemption declarations; suppression of facts was not established and the extended limitation period could not be invoked. en-us Wed, 01 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:20:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288573 Separate excise clearances of three cooler manufacturing units could not be clubbed because the record did not show sham existence, common funding, financial flow back, or other clinching evidence that two units were dummy concerns of the first. Common premises, shared brand, related proprietors, and assistance in procurement or marketing were treated as insufficient by themselves, so exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE remained available. The demand was also held to be time-barred because the department already knew of the manufacturing activity, had carried out inspections, and had received exemption declarations; suppression of facts was not established and the extended limitation period could not be invoked. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288573