1993 (2) TMI 275

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... six brothers being partners in Engineering Works there is an additional partner namely Smt. Balwinder Kumari Kaur, sister of the partner brothers. 3. On a visit by the Preventive Staff of Central Excise on 18-8-92, two units were found to be engaged in manufacturing on rice sheller plants and rice husk machine falling under Tariff Item 68. On investigation it was found that apart from the aforesaid 6 partners being common there are other common factors namely; 1.         The accountant Shri V.K. Sharma is common. 2.         Both the units are using the same trade mark of 'Panesar'. 3.         On the letter pads o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nation V of Notification No. 89/79 and Explanation II of Notification No. 105/80, dtd. 19-6-80 value of all clearances of the goods which are fully exempt by any other notification issued under Rule 8(1) are not to be computed for the purpose of aggregate clearance under the aforesaid notifications namely 89/89 and 105/80. On this basis the Collector has given the benefit to the respondents herein and dropped the proceedings of demand of Rs. 1,00,371/-. He has also dropped the penal proceedings initiated against them vide show cause notice dtd. 22-12-82. 6. We have heard both sides. Ld. JDR Shri S.K. Sharma for the Revenue while reiterating the facts as given in the CBEC order under Section 35E(1), dtd. 15-3-85 has relied upon Tribuna .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ther words prior to 1978 the process production of these machines was being carried on entirely by Panesar Bros. at their existing premise. He also pointed out that it is apparent from the show cause notice that on the date of visit both the units were found engaged in the manufacture of the said goods. It cannot therefore be said, submits the ld. Advocate, that Panesar Bros. was merely a dummy unit or was merely an extension of Engineering Works. He therefore submits that the appeal has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. We are inclined to agree with the submissions of the ld. Advocates S/Sh. G.S. Bhangoo and K.K. Anand. Benefit of notification, as urged, 85/79 an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X