TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -II. They are manufacturing voltage stabilisers and parts thereof in these sheds under the same management. 3. A question had arisen whether production of shed Nos. 83 and 84 was required to be clubbed for the purpose of determining whether they were entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 46/81 or department was entitled to deny them the benefit clubbing the two together on the ground that the production had exceeded prescribed limit of Rs. 30 Lacs. 4. The matter had earlier come before the Tribunal for the period prior to 12-2-1982 and was settled by the Tribunal s Order No. 199/85, dated 14-3-1985. 5. In this order, the Tribunal had upheld the department s contention that the production of these two sheds was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s). 11. Ld. D.R. drew attention to the order-in-original, in particular the operative portion of the order on pages 5-8 of that order which reads as follows : From the facts on records it is clear that M/s. Servo Electronics (P) Ltd., is a partnership concern. In their partnership deed executed on 1-5-1979 the business premises of the factory has been mentioned as Shed No. 83-84, DSIDC Complex, Okhla Indl. Area, New Delhi. The partnership deed does not mention two independent units. 2. Further it is evident that in the ground plan of the factory submitted to the Chief Inspector of Factories for registration and grant of licence, under the Factories Act both sheds 83-84 have been shown as place of manufacture. To reiterate sheds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee had failed to substantiate his claim for the independent character of the unit at Shed No. 84. It thus appears that shed No. 84, DSIDC Complex, Okhla was got registered under the Shop and Establishment Act, 1954, subsequently for the purpose of fragmentation of the factory. It was done to evade central excise duty by wrongly availing exemption under Notification No. 105/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 - as M/s. Servo Electronics had already exceeded the limit of 30 Lakhs in the financial year 1981-82, and were not eligible for the exemption under 105/80 during 1982-83. This is more specifically cogent in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in the Jayshree case - The ratio of this order would apply in this case too. Therefore, the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
