TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearances of excisable goods effected in the name of M/s. Unique Project Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Mikron Industrial Components Pvt. Ltd. for the purpose of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Unique Industrial Handlers Pvt. Ltd., Appellants No. 1, manufacture Wrenches and parts thereof; that a show cause notice dated 26-9-1989 was issued for demanding Central Excise Duty and for imposing penalties alleging that Appellants No. 1 manufactured and cleared excisable goods in the name of M/s. Unique Project Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., Appellants No. 2, and M/s. Mikron Industrial Components Pvt. Ltd.; that the Collector confirmed the demand of excise duty amounting to Rs. 89,437.50 for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Plot No. E-63, there was no permanent machinery found installed when the officers visited the said premises; that no raw material belonging to Unique Project was found. The Collector also held, in the impugned Order, that considering the fact that M/s. Mikron Industrial Components had only a shed at Plot No. E-63 without any machinery and staff and all their records were found in the factory premises of Appellants No. 1 and various statements of the Job Workers and directors, it was evident that M/s. Mikron Industrial Components had not manufactured any goods and it was only the Appellants No. 1 which had manufactured the goods. 3. Shri M.S. Jagesha, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Unique Industrial Handlers Pvt. Ltd. commenced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in 1988; that as the officers visited Plot No. E-63 on 13-9-1988 the machinery had also been moved to the project site along with workers and for these reasons they did not find any machinery in the premises. With regard to M/s. Mikron Industrial Components, learned Advocate submitted that they are an independent unit having different directors with their own premises, machinery and staff; that M/s. Mikron Industrial had also obtained the permission under Rule 57F(2) for getting the material processed; that for want of facility the records of M/s. Mikron Industrial were maintained in the premises of Appellants No. 1. Finally, he submitted that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the Appellants as L-4 licence has been issued b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon the decision in the case of Aroma Apparels v. CCE, Bombay, 1986 (25) E.L.T. 90 (Tri.) wherein it was held that firm is not treatable as dummy on mere suspicion or surmise. 4. Countering the arguments, Shri M.P. Singh, learned D.R., submitted that neither Unique Project Fabricators nor Mikron Industrial Components were having sufficient machinery with them for manufacture of the wrenches and parts thereof; that at Plot No. E-66 no factory was found as it was an open shed and at E-63, no permanent machinery was installed there nor any raw material was found there belonging to M/s. Unique Project Fabricators; that the goods sent for job work by Unique Project Fabricators were accounted for by M/s. Mikron Industrial Components wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... showing as Director, common procurement of raw material, centralised payment to employees, common storage facility, common operation of bank accounts and other financial management between the units. He also mentioned that this decision has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. A-84. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Kores India Ltd. v. CCE, 2000 (39) RLT 776. 5. In reply the learned Advocate mentioned that the payment of job charges were made by M/s. Mikron Industrial Components only once or twice as M/s. Unique Project Fabricators were having financial crunch. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Learned Advocate for the appellants has emphatically contended tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... units. The Appellants have not been successful in controverting the findings reached by the Collector in the impugned Adjudicating Order. We, therefore, uphold the order as far as clubbing of the clearances is concerned for the purpose of availment of exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE by M/s. Unique Industrial Handlers Pvt. Ltd. is concerned. However, we find force in the submissions made by the learned Advocate that no duty would be chargeable in respect of goods which have been exported by M/s. Unique Project Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. The duty is, therefore, to be worked out again after deducting the value of the goods cleared for exports, if any. Consequently, the amount of penalty imposable will also have to be reconsidered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
