TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a dummy unit created by M/s. K.A.A. Arunachalam Printing Division (KAAAPD) for the purpose of availing exemption under Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993. He has also charged that clearances of printed cartons as alleged in the Annexure-III was illicitly removed from KAAAPD. He has also upheld the charge of invocation of larger period and confirmed duty demands of Rs. 2,25,841/- for the period 21-8-93 to 25-12-93. There is a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each on M/s. KAAAPD under Rule 173Q and Rs. 5,000/- on M/s. TTPL under Rule 209A of C.E. Rules. Further penalty of Rs. 5,000/- each on Shri A. Tenzing, Director/Partner and Shri M. Rathinasamy, Supervisor has also been imposed. 2. Appellants contention is that M/s. KAAAPD is a partnersh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was no financial flow back. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner that there was control of production and sale is not found on any evidence. They further contended that the demands were time-barred and cannot be enforced as both the units were independent units. They have relied on the following judgment :- 1. 1994 (71) E.L.T. 689 (T) - Alpha Toya Ltd. 2. 1992 (62) E.L.T. 469 - Prabhat Dyes 3. 1991 (54) E.L.T. 333 - Spring Fresh Drinks 4 1991 (53) E.L.T. 152 (T) - Viomad Labs (P) Ltd. 5. 1989 (43) E.L.T. 327 (T) - Kinjal Electricals 6. 1993 (67) E.L.T. 712 - Shri Ranga Industries 7. 1987 (32) E.L.T. 204 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that unless and until the company is not in existence without any manufacturing facility or any registration and SSI certification, only then such a finding of dummy unit can be arrived at . In this case, as there were separate registrations and there was no flow back, the finding of dummy unit arrived at is not in keeping with the law laid down in the light of judgments cited. He sought for setting aside the order impugned. 6. On the other hand, ld. SDR defended the order on the basis of findings recorded by the Commissioner and about one of the Directors being partner in the new firm and also on the basis of new firm accepting orders from the manufacturer. He submits that there were transactions between these two units and since these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a common managerial control, that by itself cannot be a cause for clubbing the unit. This judgment directly applies to the facts of the case. The Commissioner has held in the present case that the unit appears to be a dummy unit of the main unit, operating only on paper. Such a finding cannot be accepted for the reason that private limited company was incorporated under the Company s Act and was functioning independently from 1961, while the other as partnership firm came into existence only in the year 1984. Where there were independent units and merely because there was common passage or there was some independent transaction between the unit, that has been negatived as a reason for clubbing of clearances. In the present case, the secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
