TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sharp Printers. M/s. Bathija Enterprises is a Proprietary concern. The goods in dispute are Playing Cards. The Adjudicating Authority had raised demand of Rs. 1,71,937.20 and had imposed penalty of Rs. 40,000/- on M/s. Bathija Enterprises, and penalty of Rs.5000/- each on Shri Anil Bathija, Beauty Pack Industries, M/s. Anil Packaging and Sharp Printers. The Appellants have prayed for decision on merits. In their written submission they have submitted that under Notification No. 73/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 sports goods are under exemption and it has been held by the Tribunal as Playing Cards were of sport goods. The period involved in this proceeding is from April, 1984 to March, 1989 and that with effect from April, 1986 to March, 1987 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustries and Sharp Printers. M/s. Bathija Enterprises continued to print sheets for production of Playing Cards and these three units were processing the sheets for final manufacture of the Playing cards. From the statement of the assessees as well as other persons concerned with their operations, it is clear that for all purposes all three units were be treated and taken as the units of M/s. Bathija Enterprises. The brand name was the firm of M/s. Bathija Enterprises and all the three units were producing Playing Cards with the brand name. There was common utilisation of the raw materials, common place, and in a number of cases goods were also common. The Adjudicating Authority has also discussed that in the instant case extended period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... units having common proprietary interest controlled by only one person when the units were having common fuel, machinery and the labour and there was interconnection in various respects within the units the value of clearances were liable to be clubbed for the purposes of S.S.I. On limitation also the Tribunal had held that when the main unit had been fragmented into two different units to avail exemption the extended period of limitation can be invoked. In the facts and circumstances of the case while we are allowing the Appeal insofar as the period March, 1986 to March, 1989 is concerned, we confirm the duty liability for the period from March, 1984 to 28-2-1986. 6. In view of the above, the amount of penalty imposed on M/s. Bathija En ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
