9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : T.P. Nambiar, Member (J)]. - Duty demand in this case is to the extent of Rs. 1,43,843/- and penalty of Rs. 15,000/- has also been imposed on the appellant. 2. Shri J.P. Lawania, Technical Adviser appearing on behalf of the appellants contended before us that the value of clearances from 1-4-1992 to 1-10-1992 could not have been clubbed with the two firms i.e. M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sole proprietor of M/s. UOP. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. On a perusal of the impugned order we find that the adjudicating authority has based his conclusions that these two firms were one and the same and also on the ground that Naresh Shroff was the partner of M/s. Ideal Packaging and that he had played the important role in both the firms. In our view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber of decisions, this Tribunal has held that in order to establish that two firms are one and the same, there must be evidence to show that there is mutuality of interest and both the units were functioning as one and the same and also financial flow back and integrality of operations between the two units. Unless these factors are established by evidence on record, it cannot be held that both th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.E., dated 15-11-1985. 6. Shri V. Thyagaraj, the learned SDR contended before us that there are obligations which are cast on the assessee and they should comply with the procedural formalities for the purpose of claiming the benefit of Notification No. 237/85, dated 15-11-1985. In this connection on a query to the appellants as to whether such procedure is prescribed in the notification an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed the procedure laid down in the notification and therefore not entitled to the benefit of the notification. We therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the learned lower authority in this regard and we therefore, confirm the finding of the lower authority in this regard. Therefore, this plea of the appellant is rejected. In the result we are of the view that duty demand should be worked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
