TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken a preliminary objection pertaining to maintainability of the appeal. By the impugned Order-in-Original, the Commissioner of Central Excise in his detailed order has dropped the proceedings with regard to the allegation of clubbing of clearances and clandestine removal of goods. The show cause notice had alleged that several units which were in existence were not separate and independent and they were functioning with common ownership and three units owned by Smt. Sudha Mittal, Shri Rohit Mittal and Shri S. P. Mittal were required to be clubbed together for the purpose of raising demands. The Commissioner after detailed scrutiny of the evidence on record held the units owned by these three persons as independent units and geographically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for confirmation of demands ought to have been made on one of the party in terms of the prayer. However, no separate prayer for confirmation of demands has also been made on any one of the party. 3. It is the contention of learned Counsel that the Larger Bench in the case of CCE, Mumbai Vs. AZO Dye Chem - 2000 (120) ELT 201 (Tri.-LB) in a similar situation held that subsequent appeals filed with an application for condonation of delay was dismissed on the ground that in an application filed under Section 35 E (4) of Central Excise Act 1944, the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay caused in filling the appeal beyond the period of three months allowed by that clause. 3.1 The learned Counsel also pointed out that the defec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm demands. All the noticees filed their replies and produced evidence to claim each of the unit to be independent. They contended that the value of clearances of all the units cannot be clubbed as there was no clandestine removal or suppression of facts and that there was no creation of dummy units. The Commissioner after detailed examination of the matter accepted their pleas and dropped the proceedings. In the Review Order dated 24.2.2004, the prayer made is that there is non-application of mind with regard to scrutiny of documentary and material evidence on record, thereby the order is not sustainable. Two questions were framed in the reference order. (a) Whether, after taking into consideration the above facts in the Order-in-Origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
