TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Union Steel Industries. (ii) the seizure and confiscation of the goods found unrecorded in RG 1 register. (iii) confirmation of demand on the goods found short. (iv) imposition of penalty and (v) confiscation of building, land etc. 3. The facts of the present case leading to the present appeals are that the show-cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the clearances of the two units should not be clubbed together for determining their eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. as amended and why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,77,054.51 should not be demanded from them. They were also asked as to why the goods found in excess should not be confiscated and why penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jagjivandas Co. v. C.C.E., Bombay-II reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 441 (Tribunal) = 1985 ECR 17 (Tribunal). He also cited and relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Pimpri Gases v. C.C.E. reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 474 (Tribunal). By referring to these decisions, the Counsel submitted that the Tribunal in these two cases set out the parameters for determining whether the clubbing of clearances of the two units is warranted or not. Counsel submitted that these decisions clearly showed that the factors in the present case did not warrant the clubbing of the clearances of the two units. Reading extensively from the adjudication order, the Counsel submitted that most of the issues raised before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The Counsel also submitted that since the goods were not fully manufactured, the question of their recording in RG 1 register was not necessary and therefore, the confiscation was not warranted. The Counsel also submits that since there cannot be any clubbing of clearances of the two units nor confiscation of semi-finished goods being ordered, therefore, the imposition of penalty is also not justified. 7. Countering the arguments of the ld. Counsel, the ld. SDR submits that the appellants belonged to the same group and that the ld. Adjudicating Authority has held that there was sharing of profit and that quite often, the work of one unit was being done by the other; that the orders received by one unit were executed by the other unit; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we note that so far as the sharing of profit was concerned, no evidence has been placed on record to show that profit of unit A was being shared by the partners of other unit B . In the absence of any evidence, the findings of the ld. Adjudicating Authority is not sustainable. 11. Insofar as the advancing of loans were concerned, it was brought to our notice that under the personal law of the appellants, no interest was chargeable. This position has not been controverted. Insofar as the payment of job work charges was concerned, it was argued before us that it was on rare occasion that job work of one unit was being attended to by the other unit. Looking to the facts and circumstances and the above findings, we hold that clearances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
