https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43949 Exemption under Notification No. 176/77-C.E. depended on the capital investment in the industrial unit where the goods were manufactured and on the manufacturer's own preceding-year clearances. The Orissa HC noted that the two products were manufactured in distinct units and fell under different tariff items, so the capital investment of those units could not be clubbed. It also held that clearances of goods manufactured by another concern under a franchise arrangement could not be added to the petitioner's clearances for testing the turnover limit. On that basis, the exemption was available and the denial of benefit was unsustainable. en-us Thu, 11 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:36:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43949 Exemption under Notification No. 176/77-C.E. depended on the capital investment in the industrial unit where the goods were manufactured and on the manufacturer's own preceding-year clearances. The Orissa HC noted that the two products were manufactured in distinct units and fell under different tariff items, so the capital investment of those units could not be clubbed. It also held that clearances of goods manufactured by another concern under a franchise arrangement could not be added to the petitioner's clearances for testing the turnover limit. On that basis, the exemption was available and the denial of benefit was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43949