TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant is a partnership firm consisting of the following Partners :- Smt. Shantaben N. Shah Smt. Pravinaben M. Shah Shri Surendra N. Shah Shri Jyotin N. Shah 3. The above partners continued to be same for the period 31st March, 1992 to 30th April, 1992. They were all related with each other. Today partners of the firm are Jyotin Navinchandra Shah, Anup Mukundlal Shah, Smt. Rina Surendra Shah and Bakula Jyotin Shah. 4. The assessee is manufacturing excisable goods falling under Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, and is carrying on business at Vapi, Dist. Valsad in the State of Gujarat. A show cause notice was issued on 29th March, 1994 by the Collector of Excise and Customs, Surat calling upon the assessee to show cause w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of both units for denying the notification. There is no evidence disclosed in the show cause notice about financial flow back. One point which was urged by the appellant was that in February, 1992 proceedings were initiated by the Department for clubbing of two units by Bombay authorities of the Central Excise which ended in its favour by the Commissioner (Appeals) which was never questioned by the Department. Therefore the present proceeding initiated by the Adjudicating Authority and confirming the show cause notice was wrong. The impugned proceedings may amount to the sitting in judgment by the adjudicating authority over Commissioner (Appeal) s Order in Bombay proceedings. Several case laws relating to clubbing have been cited by the Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, 1992. Against that order-in-appeal was filed before the Collector of Central Excise Customs (Appeals) who by his order PKS/47/B, 11/94, dated 25th October, 1994, had upheld the order passed by the Assistant Collector supra. It is an admitted position that the Department did not file any appeal to the Tribunal against the said order of the Collector (Appeals). The adjudicating authority has observed as follows in the impugned order reading as under : The Collector (Appeals) appears to have discussed only some general aspects of the issue involved like separate registration under different taxation Act, separate premises situated in different States, commonness of partners. However, he did not appear to have taken into consideration t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
