https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40879 Rule 96-J levy could not be computed by clubbing the looms of two distinct partnership firms merely because one partner was common to both. The governing test was whether the looms were worked by or on behalf of the same person; separate firms were not the same person where neither was a partner in the other and the statute did not so provide. On that reasoning, aggregation of the looms was impermissible and the consequential detention orders based on the combined levy could not stand. The writ petitions challenging the demand and detention were allowed, while the connected request for a licence was left to be pursued before the authorities according to law. en-us Tue, 19 Jul 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 May 2010 14:21:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40879 Rule 96-J levy could not be computed by clubbing the looms of two distinct partnership firms merely because one partner was common to both. The governing test was whether the looms were worked by or on behalf of the same person; separate firms were not the same person where neither was a partner in the other and the statute did not so provide. On that reasoning, aggregation of the looms was impermissible and the consequential detention orders based on the combined levy could not stand. The writ petitions challenging the demand and detention were allowed, while the connected request for a licence was left to be pursued before the authorities according to law. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Jul 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40879