https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30359 Clearances of two ostensibly separate units may be clubbed where surrounding facts show common control, overlapping family management, shared office facilities, common communication channels, shared staff, and movement of raw materials and correspondence indicating one concern was routed through the other to avoid duty. On those facts, the duty demand and penalties were sustained. Limitation was rejected because the extended period turns on the statutory relevant date, not the date of departmental knowledge. A reduction in demand was also refused because alleged Cenvat credit and export-related abatements were not supported by evidence, leaving the quantification challenge unsubstantiated. en-us Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30359 Clearances of two ostensibly separate units may be clubbed where surrounding facts show common control, overlapping family management, shared office facilities, common communication channels, shared staff, and movement of raw materials and correspondence indicating one concern was routed through the other to avoid duty. On those facts, the duty demand and penalties were sustained. Limitation was rejected because the extended period turns on the statutory relevant date, not the date of departmental knowledge. A reduction in demand was also refused because alleged Cenvat credit and export-related abatements were not supported by evidence, leaving the quantification challenge unsubstantiated. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30359