TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Salt Act, 1944 and the Rules thereunder. 2. Proceedings were instituted against the appellants by issue of a show cause notice dated 16-8-1985 inter alia alleging that the two appellant units are in fact one and the same and are integrally related and connected in business activities and were by suppres sion of facts availing the benefit of notifications 80/80-C.E. and 83/83 as amended, showing and declaring the units as two different entities and the proceedings ultimately resulted in the present impugned order. 3. S/Shri Santhanagopalan and Sadagopachari, the learned Counsel and consultant appearing for the appellants, contended as follows. Both the units are two separate legal entities in law as well as on facts. M/s. Lakme Indus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation this fact. This unit is also separately paying sales-tax, income-tax and professional tax maintaining separate accounts. The adjudicating authority has erroneously held in Para 11 of the order that M/s. Lakme Industries paid the electricity charges for both the units. This is an erroneous and patent mistake on facts, because M/s. Lakme Industries is re ceiving electric supply from service connection No. 19479 held by Shri V. Soundararajan whereas M/s. Lakme Engineers is receiving its supply from Service connection No. 51953 held by Shri Lakshminarayanasamy and the accounts maintained in this regard would bear ample testimony to the same. The finding in para 8 of the impugned order that M/s. Lakshmi Engineering Works claimed to have ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Acts, viz. Sales-tax, Professional tax, Income-tax, etc. One of the important grounds on which the adjudicating authority would appear to have given a finding that both units are one and the same is on the ground that M/s. Lakme Industries paid the electricity charges for both the units. This is factually incorrect. There are two separate electric connections under two separate ser vice connections for the two units as set out above. On going through the records it would appear that M/s. Lakshmi Engineering Works, which is located in the same com pound where M/s. Lakme Industries is located, would appear to have been mistaken for M/s. Lakme Engineers, which is in a different place viz. Sathyamangalam Road, Coimbatore-12. It would also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the years. Both units were started at two different points of time, one in September, 1978 while the other in May, 1980. Under Excise Law separate declarations have been filed and have also been accepted by the Central Excise authorities and for the year 1983-84 appellant M/s. Lakme Industries applied for AL-4 licence along with the ground plan of premises and the authorities after due verification of the premises and the records maintained in the course of the business, issued the licence to M/s. Lakme Industries. Both the units have been maintaining separate bank accounts and at all individual times the value of production and clearance from each of the units was well below the exempted limit for payment of duty. No evidence, direct or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority has held the following circumstances against the appellant :- (1) The two units are owned by husband and wife. (2) The entire range of machinery for the manufacture of the motors was not avail able in the two units separately and that in the factory of M/s. Lakme Engineers there was no coil winding facility or facility for testing of the finished motors. (3) The distribution of raw material and machinery between the two units is such as distinctly shows their complementary nature and not their competing nature. (4) The workers constituted a common work force. (5) M/s. Lakme Industries paid the electricity charges for both the units, and (6) Shri Devaraj, the husband, was the incharge of both the units. As pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s has been explained by the appellants. The two units had been licensed at different points of time and had been filing the declarations regularly and they were also maintaining records for requirements of various other laws separately. In the absence of any specific finding in regard to the actual manufacture of the motors at only one unit and also in the absence of any specific evidence by way of statements by the workers or any evidence from which an inference could be drawn that in fact the manufacturing activity of the job required for the electric motors was not taking place in one of the two units as held by the learned lower authority, the charge cannot be held to have been brought home beyond reasonable doubt. There is no statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
