Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1327 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - dummy units - clubbing of clearances - clandestine removal - use of kacchha parchis - Revenue finally concluded that other than JSW all units were dummy and hence, the clearances by all units are to be considered as clearance from M/s JSW - use of brand name of others - Held that: - After appreciation of overall evidences–both documentary as well as oral-picture that emerges is that none of the companies had the full infrastructure to manufacture the goods they were shown to make. The final assembly of goods said to be manufactured in different units. For moving the goods from one unit to another unit, some times, kachhi parchies were used. There is no clear evidence of flow back of funds among the units. All these evidences lead to an escapable conclusion that all the units were having separate existence in record by taking separate registrations under sales tax/ income tax etc. They were also filing separate declarations every year to Central Excise authorities claiming that their turnover was below the SSI limit. However, the investigation has established that all units though were shown to have separate de jure existence but the de fecto contract was with Sh. Ram Niwas Jindal - in the eye of law, it alone cannot be ground to deny the benefit of SSI exemption - the turnover of all the units need not be clubbed. Use of brand name - allegation of clearance of goods by JSW bearing the brand name belonging to HSW - Held that: - the allegation that the goods cleared to HSW were bearing the brand names of the later is not substantiated by corroborated evidence - appellants were not marking the finished goods supplied to HSW with the brand names, “Hindware” or Rassi”. They were initially mentioning the model number of the products manufactured for supply of HSW. Such marks such as “BTT”, “BTJ”, etc. cannot be considered as brand names in the absence of any investigation to prove the name mentioned on such labels was brand name or name of another person - there is no justification for denying the SSI benefit to appellant companies. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|