TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear wise clearance by all independent units. Demand ought to have been confirmed against each independent unit based on figure in SCN. Held that- “SP Group” being non existent, demand confirmed on it not sustainable. Benefit of Notification No. 5/98-C.E. to be given to individual assessee and duty demand to be re determined. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for confirmation of demand to be re-determined. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for confirmation of demand against individual units. SSI exemption alleged as wrongly availed by fragmentation of units and goods clandestinely removed without payment of duty. Held that- as the Tribunal not able to give decision on clandestine removal as finding thereon absent in impugned order. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority to reconsider issue and pass fresh order. - E/176-186 and 332/2007 - 817-828/2009 - Dated:- 23-6-2009 - S/Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) and M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) S/Shri V.M. Doiphode, S.P. Mathew, Subba Reddy and Ajay Singh, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Choudhary, Consultant, for the Respondent. [Order per: M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - All ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng factories, offices and common residences of the partners/Directors. In one of the residential premises, apart from documents/records of incriminating nature, a cash of Rs.1,90,40,000/- was found in two steel almirahs located in the room and it was alleged that the said money relates to sale proceeds of goods from different factory of the groups. At the manufacturing premises, various stocks of raw materials and finished goods (all bearing "Chetan ®" brand name) were found available without proper account. All these stocks were seized under panchanama drawn on respective premises. In addition to the seizures of raw materials, moulds and finished goods, various records and documents containing material relevant for further investigation were identified and recovered from premises under panchanama dated 7-11-2001. Further, investigation was carried out and during the course of investigation, various statements were recorded. Consequent to such investigation and recording of statements and further scrutinizing the details contained in the seized records, the officers came to the conclusion that there were following violations. (i) clandestine clearances of excisable goods. (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No. 68/63, dated 4-5-63; (v) the finished goods valued at Rs.1,36,10,391/- which were seized by the officers at various premises of SP Group should not be ordered for confiscation under erstwhile Rules 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001, since these were manufactured without any account in violation of Rules 53, 173G of erstwhile Rules and Rules 10 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules 2001; (vi) raw materials valued at Rs.41,50,244/- and moulds valued at Rs.67,19,944/- seized by the officers should not be ordered for confiscation under Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001, read with the provision of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 made applicable to like matters of Central Excise in terms of Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, vide Notification No. 68/63, dated 4-5-63; (vii) vehicles valued at Rs.16,50,000/- seized by the officers should not be ordered for confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act, read with Section 12 of the Central Excise Act and Notification 68/63 dated 4-5-63 issued thereunder since these vehicles were used in transporting excisable goods cleared in co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respective acknowledgments dated 14-11-2005 were also submitted by the Directorate to the adjudicating officer. The appellants filed detailed written reply. The Adjudicating Authority granted them a personal hearing on 2-5-2006, on which date the advocate represented representing all the appellants requested to have copies of some more documents, which have been referred to in the statements of certain personnel and stated that the said documents would be around 250 in number. Accordingly, the copies of the said documents as requested were provided on 18-5-2006. Appellants also requested for cross-examination of the persons who gave statements. The cross-examinations were allowed from 19-7-2006 to 21-7-2006. Further, seven departmental officers were also called for cross-examination and they were also cross examined. 2.4 After entire exercise of cross-examination and filing of the written submissions, all the noticees filed final replies on 8-11-2006, 10-11-2006 and 27-11-2006. Replies were taken on record and the Adjudicating Authority vide his impugned order dated 30-11-2006 adjudicated the entire issue and passed an Order-in-Original upholding all the allegations in the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, I impose redemption fine of Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs only) in lieu of confiscation. (viii) I order for confiscation of raw materials valued at Rs.1,50,244/- and moulds valued at Rs.67,19,944/- seized by the officers, under Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001, read with the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 made applicable to like matters of Central Excise in terms of Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, vide notification no. 68/63 dated 4-5-63. However, I impose redemption fine of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) and Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) respectively in lieu of confiscation. (ix) I order for confiscation of vehicles valued at Rs.16,50,000/- seized by the officers, under Section 115 of the Customs Act, read with Section 12 of the Central Excise Act and Notification 68/63 dated 4-5-63 issued thereunder since these vehicles were used in transporting excisable goods cleared in contravention of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules made thereunder. However, I impose redemption fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944) and under Rule 26 of Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001, for their involvement in the contravention of the provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules thereunder as detailed in foregoing paras. (xviii) I order for confiscation of Chetan brand excisable goods, seized at the premises of M/s. Sujatha Fancy Stores, Visakhapatnam, totally valued at Rs.3,600/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001, read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, I impose redemption fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in lieu of confiscation. (xix) I order for confiscation of Chetan brand excisable goods, seized at the premises of M/s. Mahalaxmi Enterprises, Vizianagaram, totally valued at Rs.2,376/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001, read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, I impose redemption fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in lieu of confiscation. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit the following: (i) As regards the show cause notice under Section 11A (1) demanding Central Excise duty issued to a non-existing/fictitious enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T. 197 (T), it was held that reference to the same factory in the notification makes it clear that production in other factories has' no relevance. (iv) The next point in dispute which was addressed by the advocate was whether the relevant provisions of Notification No. 5/98 authorizing clubbing of value of clearances of different factories, assuming that there was only one manufacturer, who in one of its factories availed credit and denying the benefit to other factories was correct. On this point, he made the following submissions: (a) The relevant Condition No. 10 seeks to deny the exemption if the manufacturer avails the credit on any product manufactured in the same factory where they intend to avail the exemption. (b) Condition No. 12 of the very same Notification, which is applicable to entirely different product categorically provides/authorizes clubbing value of clearances by a manufacturer from different factories for determining the aggregate value of clearance, which is not the case in respect of plastic goods covered by Condition No. 10 of the Notification. (v) As regards the allegation of revenue with respect to clandestine removal, whether it is relevant wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed at Exhibit 'F'. (e) All these units are independently financed, having separate independent factories, different constituents one of them is a Private Limited Company and are availing exemptions under different Taxation Laws and are assessed separately. (vii) Whether the charge of clandestine removal is sustainable or not, the learned counsel urged the following points. (a) The alleged charge of clandestine removal is based on: * Codes such as '*', 'AS' 'C' appearing on the invoices * Statement of Dealers. * Statements of suppliers of raw material * Fictitious sale of raw material. * Decreasing trend of Turn Over per unit consumption of electricity. (b) The alleged codes were amply explained in the replies filed by the appellants but no findings were recorded thereon by the adjudicating authority. (c) The alleged codes were used even on correspondence to various dealers and customers. These codes were used on invoices issued during the period when these goods were exempted without any limit/restriction on value of clearance copies of some such correspondence/invoices were placed before the Commissioner. Copies of the same are enclosed herewith collectivel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the allegation of clandestine procurement of raw material. For e.g. Cross Examination of Manoj Dugar, who allegedly supplied on an average of 30 MTs each month during the relevant period. A copy of record of Cross Examination of Shri Manoj Dugar is annexed herewith at Exhibit- 'L'. (j) Consequently to the fact that, NPI and SKPI were getting their goods manufactured on Job work basis from the other units also is ignored. (k) Documents in the form of Job work challans, supply of raw material, Challans showing return of finished goods, entries in the books of accounts showing payment of Job charges by each of the units or payments received for such units, including some outsiders which were available before the Commissioner, having been seized and relied upon and also placed before the Commissioner during the Cross-Examination of PVSS Srinivas and also along with the replies filed are not taken into consideration. (l) SIO, Shri PVSS Srinivas during his cross examination admitted this fact that the documentary evidence to this effect is available in the documents seized during investigation (Q Nos. 45 to 58). However, commissioner refused to acknowledge this aspect of job wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Gajanan Fabrics Distributors (supra) which judgment is referred above. In view of this, the Tribunal's order in the case of Supreme Engineering Works (supra) is no more a good law and therefore, the impugned order based on this decision of the Tribunal can not be sustained, though the Hon'ble Supreme Court had merely dismissed the appeal filed against this decision of the Tribunal, the decision of the tribunal rendered in the case of Supreme Engineering Works cannot be made the basis for fastening the liability as is done by the adjudicating authority. (ix) So far as the appellant M/s. Sirigiri Plastic Industries (SGPI) is concerned, the Commissioner was pleased to categorically exonerate the Appellants (Appeal No. 179/07) of charges of clandestine activity. However, the Commissioner held the capital goods of the appellant on which credit was availed are liable for confiscation on the ground that they were found installed at the premises of M/s. SKPI. Accordingly, the same were held liable to confiscation but were allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The credit availed by the appellants also is disallowed. While holding so, the Commissioner did not ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto consideration and did not record any reasons for not taking the same into consideration. In fact the impugned order does not contain any finding on these aspects. (x) As regards confiscation of currency of Rs.1,90,40,000/- and Rs.7,95,700/- of finished goods, raw materials, vehicles and injection moulding machines and penalties imposed on the appellants, the learned counsel would submit as under: (a) The Commissioner has ordered absolute confiscation of the seized cash of Rs.1,90,40,000/- without offering any redemption, thereof, which is illegal. Inasmuch as, in terms of Section 34 of Central Excise Act, 1944, any goods confiscated shall be offered for redemption on payment of fine. The seized cash was sought to be confiscated on the ground that the amount is part of illicit sale proceeds of excisable goods on account of the clear evidence of unaccounted realization of sale proceeds. The purported finding of the Commissioner justifying the confiscation of cash recorded in Para 318 is a verbatim reproduction of Para 48.0 and 48.1 of the Show Cause Notice. No findings were recorded on the plea of the appellants in the reply before Commissioner pertaining to the proposed conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na (C-I 16) also addressed these units as "Group" while making a reference to "M/s. Satyanarayan Plastic Industries". Further, it is amply clear from various statements recorded and other evidences, that these units were identified as "Satyanarayan Group" even as far as in 1995. Thus, I find that these units are referred to as "SP Group" by the members of the said group themselves, Directorate and even the Income Tax Department". (ii) It would be Evident from the Commissioner's Order that all the manufacturing units as well as their trading firm (SPA) are being run by the family members themselves in tandem even though each unit has been assigned a legal entity either as a partnership firm or private limited company. In this connection, it is noteworthy that though Sri Satyanarayan is partner in SPI and SGPI and Director in CPPL, he looks after the marketing/realization of sale proceeds, besides general supervision of all the units. Similarly, Sri S. Radha Krishna, even though, a partner in SPI, SGPI and SKPI and Director in CPPL, he looks after the procurement of raw-materials for all units, while Sri Naveen Sirigiri looks after production activity and Sri Chetan Sirigiri and Sr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learances from each manufacturing unit. Moreover, the computerized invoices also did not reflect the true details of goods cleared from each unit, since in some cases goods actually manufactured an cleared from one unit were shown (of suppressed quantity) in another unit's accounts. Accordingly, the Department adopted the sale-price of such products on the basis of coded invoices issued by the trading firm SPA raised against their wholesale dealers and other customers. These invoices did not give any particulars to identify a particular unit in which such goods had been manufactured and cleared. (iv) Only a very small percentage of removals were affected from manufacturing units directly to their customers by using pre-determined codes in their invoices. Accordingly, in respect of only such removals, it has been possible to relate these clearances to an individual manufacturing unit for determining the actual assessable values after decoding and as admitted by them. (Annexure E-2 to SCN refers.) (v) The learned advocate has mis-represented these fact when he submitted before the Hon'ble Bench at the time of hearing of stay petition that "Even though in Annexure-E to the Show Ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court's judgment in the case of Gajanan Fabric Distributors - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 451 (S.C). As a matter of fact, even though facts are distinguishable, the ratio of this decision will in fact support the Department's case. In Gajanan Fabric case, the Commissioner had confirmed the demand of duty on all seven units, except Gajanan Weaving Mills, while holding at the same time such units to be only a camouflage. The Supreme Court observed that once the Commissioner arrived at such conclusion then the demand should have been raised on Gajanan Weaving Mills. The Court further observed that by confirming the demand upon all the seven units, the Collector has treated them all as assessees and implicitly recognized their independent existence. On these grounds, the appeal against Tribunal order was allowed and matter remanded for de novo adjudication. In the present case duty has not been demanded from individual units. (x) In the present case, in view of the commonality of interest, inter-dependence of each unit on other units and other relevant factors and in absence of true value of clearances from each individual unit, duty has been demanded severally and jointly from all suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Fabrics case was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court and remanded for de novo, the Hon'ble Tribunal in Supreme Engineering case has relied upon other case-laws as well). (xii) The learned special counsel relied on the following rulings to buttress his submissions: (a) Unique Resin Industries - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 230 (b) Simplex Expeller Works - 2001 (138) E.L.T. 678 (T) (xiii) He further submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal may take note of the peculiar facts of this case while considering the sustainability of the demand made jointly and severally against all the manufacturing units by the Commissioner. In a situation like this, where persons belonging to the same family organize their manufacturing activities and clandestine clearances of excisable goods, in such a manner that it renders impossible to determine value and quantity of clearances from each such unit, they cannot be allowed to take shelter by taking a plea that the requirement of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act has not been satisfied. Even otherwise, once it is found that different entities have been created under common family control being exercised over the activities of all manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) It was pointed out that the above decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal was based on the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shree Gajanan Fabrics Distributors v. CCE, Pune , which decision was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 1997 (92) E.L.T. 451 (S.C). (vi) In rejoinder, it was also submitted that in the case of Supreme Engineering Works, the appeal was dismissed in limine and such dismissal would not become a binding precedent. In support of this, reliance is placed on Sun Export Corporation as reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.). 6. In reply, the learned special counsel for the revenue contended that: (a) All the six units are created by Shri S. Radhakrishna and Shri S. Satyanarayana. (b) All the activities of the units are carried out by the 4 brothers and son of one brother. (Close relatives without the involvement of any outsiders). (c) Moulds of one unit were found in another unit. (d) Capital goods of Sirigiri Plastic Industries were found in the premises of SK Plast Industries. (e) One unit was manufacturing for another unit. (f) Clearance of each of the 6 units not segregatable and, therefore, value of individual units ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fferential duty demand of Rs.11,50,29,405/- is worked out. The detailed charts at E-I(a), (b), (c), (d) (e) were also shown to the Bench to demonstrate that there is an acknowledgement of existence of independent units. (v) None of the decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the Revenue is applicable to facts and circumstances of the case, as may be seen below: * Gajanana Fabrics - Commissioner himself has recorded a finding in (page 124 of the Order-in-Original) that this decision Court is not applicable to the present case. Then how this would advance the case of the department. * Simplex Expeller - The facts are entirely different inasmuch as for all the units which claimed SSI exemption, machinery was found only in one unit. However, in the present case, the undisputed fact is that there are six separate factories and their separate existence was categorically accepted. * Supreme Engineering Works - This decision of the Tribunal was based on an earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Gajanan Fabrics , which was later reversed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 451 (S.C.). * Bell Products - SSI exemption was denied mainly on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue was arrived by multiplying the sale value in the cash bill. Appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Nav Karnataka Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Belgaum as reported in 2008 (225) E.L.T. 454 (Tri.). C.Confiscation of Cash As regards the confiscation of cash, it was submitted that part of the cash belonging to Sirigiri Plastic Industries (Rs. 11,73,000/-) was also confiscated as sale proceeds of plastic articles clandestinely cleared, despite categorical finding by the Commissioner that Sirigiri Plastic Industries did not indulge in any clandestine manufacture or clearance (Para (iii) at page 52 of OIO). Considering the fact that several submissions made in detail with regard to each of these aspects of clandestine removal were not dealt with by Adjudicating Authority, a specific plea was made before the Hon'ble Bench that this aspect deserves re-consideration by the adjudicating authority. D. Denial of CENVAT Credit availed by SGPI (i) Credit was denied on the allegation that the 3 machines are installed in the premises of M/s. SGPI and, therefore, SGPI could have not availed the credit. (ii) It was pointed out that the premises where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmined without first determining the clearance value with reference to the Notification No. 5/98 from each factories and whether the charge of clandestine removal is sustainable. (d) In addition to the above, other minor issues which arises for our consideration is whether the Cenvat credit claimed on the capital goods which were not installed in the premises of M/s. SGPI and finally whether the confiscation of the currency is correct. 8.2 In order to address all the above issues, first and foremost, we have to address the issue whether clubbing of clearances in these cases is correct or not. It is undisputed that all the six units were independent units and were having their own manufacturing facilities. It is also undisputed that all the six units had their independent Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC), land lease deeds, there were separate AP Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax registrations for all the units and there were also SSI registration and SIO registration certificates of all the units individually. On this factual background, the finding of the Adjudicating Authority as regards the clubbing of clearances needs to be reproduced. 270. As reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel's reliance on one of the decision of this Bench in the case of CCE, Mangalore v. Sushil Chemicals - 2008 (230) E.L.T. 117 (Tri.-Bang.) is very important and is on the point. We may reproduce the ratio of the said decision. "6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The Adjudicating Authority in his findings has come to the conclusion that a group of seven persons belong to the same family had funded and managed the activity of the nine separate units engaged in the manufacture and clearance of wood and articles of wood. He has given various instances evidencing the following. (a) Financing for setting up of new units and for providing working capital. (b) Financial accommodation. (c) Credit accommodation. (d) Payment receipt on behalf of sister concerns. (e) Intra-firm adjustment. (f) Interest payment. (g) Common management system. From Para 61 to Para 82 of the impugned order the Commissioner has brought out various transactions between the nine units. In Para 94, he makes the following observations: "These decisions, inter alia, reiterate the position that clearances cannot be clubbed as long as there is no flow back of profits, in thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 451 (S.C.) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held clearly that revenue can demand duty from one person by proving that others were dummy. Seeing from another angle, the said decision will support the appellants' case, as in these cases it is on record and fairly admitted by the learned Special Counsel that all the six units were having their own manufacturing premises. If that be so, we are unable to understand how the lower authorities proceeded to consider all these units to be dummy units and club their clearances to confirm entire demand on 'SP Group'. It is also surprising that the lower authority has clubbed all the clearances of six existing units and confirmed the duty on non-existing unit, which is directly in contradiction to the decision of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gajanan Fabrics Distributors v. CCE (supra). It is also seen that the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Sushil Chemicals (supra) as regards the group/entity will be very relevant. We may reproduce the said ratio. "6.1 The above observations do not mean that we are allowing Revenue's appeal. We have to examine the findings of the Commissioner from Paragraphs 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be a reason for clubbing the clearances. Moreover, the law does not prohibit family members from establishing different proprietary and partnership concerns. No law can prevent the units of a group working for the common benefit of the group. The group itself is not a legal entity. When such is the case, legally also a demand cannot be slapped on a group which has no legal existence. We have already extracted the Commissioner's finding in Paras 95, 96 97. In the light of those findings, the Commissioner's decision to drop the proceedings is correct. We do not find any merit in the Revenue's appeal and therefore, the same is dismissed." (emphasis supplied) 8.6 It can be seen that we have clearly held that no law can prevent a unit or the group working for common benefit of the group. In the cases before us also, it is very clear that these units may be common but the group itself i.e., "SP Group" is not a legal entity. No documentary evidence or any other evidence was produced by the revenue to indicate an existence of 'SP Group' anywhere in the records. In the absence of any such evidence, we have to hold that 'SP Group' is a non-existent entity and is not legally answerab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequent to the service of notice on 'a person' chargeable to duty requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice. It can be seen from the records that the show cause notice has been served to all the individual assesses/appellants before us. The said show cause notice does not demand the duty from anyone of them independently but has been demanded from 'SP Group' jointly. We find strong force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel that Annexure E-1(a) to F-1(e) to the show cause notice clearly indicate the value of clearances of different units for the entire period of show cause notice. On going through the entire annexures, we find that the said charts clearly indicate year-wise clearances made by all the independent units. The said chart seeks to fix the duty liability on the individual units by adding the so-called clandestine removals into the value and then arriving at the duty liability. If that be so, the contentions raised by the learned Special Counsel for the revenue falls flat that clubbing of clearances needs to be done in these cases and chart E-1(a) to E-1(e) are only indicative of the clearances made by the indep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld against any person if there are findings to that effect. On perusal of the entire Order-in-Original, we find that the detailed submissions made by the appellants before; the Adjudicating Authority, on the clandestine removals and the justification given by them as regards the coded invoices and multiplication of cash sales, etc. were not at all considered by the Adjudicating Authority as he was considering the independent units/appellants herein as a single entity. Since there are no findings on the clandestine removal, we are unable to come to any conclusion on this issue. 11. In view of the above reasoning, we hold: (i) There is no entity called 'SP Group' and the provisions of Section 11A cannot be invoked against an non-existent entity and the said provisions can be invoked only against an person who is existent i.e., independent units. (ii) Since there are evidences which indicate that all the independent unit's sales clearances have been tabulated and corroborated in the show cause notice, the demand of duty, if any, against independent units has to be reworked, in accordance with law. (iii) The benefit of exemption Notification No. 5/98 has to be given to indivi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
