https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50095 Four associated units were treated as dummy units where the same person controlled the appellant and the other units, manufacture took place from the appellant's premises or rooms under its control, and raw materials, machinery and accounts were managed through the appellant. Separate excise, income-tax and sales-tax registrations did not prove independent existence because there was no supporting evidence of separate manufacture, raw material purchases, sales, labour or machinery. The absence of proof of monetary flow-back was not decisive, as dummy character could be established from surrounding facts and circumstances. Clearances were therefore clubbed, and the duty demand and penalties were sustained. en-us Tue, 14 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:06:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50095 Four associated units were treated as dummy units where the same person controlled the appellant and the other units, manufacture took place from the appellant's premises or rooms under its control, and raw materials, machinery and accounts were managed through the appellant. Separate excise, income-tax and sales-tax registrations did not prove independent existence because there was no supporting evidence of separate manufacture, raw material purchases, sales, labour or machinery. The absence of proof of monetary flow-back was not decisive, as dummy character could be established from surrounding facts and circumstances. Clearances were therefore clubbed, and the duty demand and penalties were sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50095