Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1996 (4) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e. (1) M/s. S.D. Textiles Traders; (2) M/s. Texcard Engineering, and (3) M/s. Canreco Textiles Traders were set up so as to avail of the benefit of exemption Notification 175/86 with intention to evade payment of duty. The appellants are manufacturers of textile machinery. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants pleaded that the appellants have necessary machinery for manufacture of the goods. He pleaded that the various units are located in different premises. It was also urged that S.D. Textile Traders was started in 1984 and they had their own SSI Certificate and sales tax registration and income tax assessment etc. and they had not been floated with a view to take advantage of the exemption Notification 175/86. It was urged that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ther companies. It was pleaded that the appellants and the other three units were functioning as independent Companies and were located at three different places and the goods were supplied by each of the Company under their own invoices to their respective customers. He pleaded that the records seized, or the investigation done with the customers, or with the job workers, did not show that in fact all the purchases were being made on behalf of the appellants herein. He further pleaded that there were common partners for the different firms and some times there was mutual accommodation by way of supply of some raw material from one unit to the other but such supply has been under proper invoices and the transactions were reflected in the ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y diverted the order to other units where goods are ready for despatch. (2) The customers were aware of the fact that all the units are one and the same and run by the same persons. (3) Goods were supplied from one unit and bills raised from other units. (4) Since their business was expanding, to cope up with the market, they have floated different units in order to avoid tax. (5) Though the constitution of partners are different in different units, day to day management was invariably attended to by Shri M. Sivakumar and Shri U.K. Devarajan. (6) They did not maintain stock book for raw materials and finished goods in respect of other three units viz. M/s. S.D. Textiles, M/s. Texcard Engineering and M/s. Canreco Textile Traders. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the impugned order. He pleaded that the appellants have been rightly held to be guilty of evasion of duty. 4. We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that this is a case where the learned lower authority has held that transaction of machinery parts have been reflected in the accounts of 3 other units and the appellants have to be held to be manufacturer of the goods said to have been manufactured by the other three units. The learned CCE has relied upon the statement of one Sivakumar. The said Sivakumar has nowhere admitted that the goods supplied against the bills of other three units were manufactured by the appellants. What he had stated is that the other three firms were floated for expanding the business and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Tribunals. The benefit in such an event available in respect of the manufacture by the job worker availing of the exemption may ultimately accrue to the person who gets the goods manufactured but there is nothing in law against that. Further more, in the present case, the authorities seized the records and accounts etc. and nothing has been brought on record to show that the averments in regard to the goods having been got manufactured by the other three units were not correct. If the goods have not been shown to have been manufactured by the appellants and there is nothing contrary to the averments made regarding manufacture by job workers as above so far as the other three units are concerned we do not accept how the demand could have b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates