TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to why - (a) Duty of Rs. 26,74,788 for the period should not be demanded and recovered from them for the period April, 94 to October, 97 by clubbing the clearances of other five units viz. (i) Universal Construction Equipments Co. (hereinafter referred to as UCEC for short) (ii) Universal Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as UE for short) (iii) Universal Engineering Company (UEC) (iv) Mata Traders (hereinafter referred to as MT for short) (v) RHM are Construction Equipment Pvt. Ltd. (RHMCE for short) (b) Differential duty of Rs. 1,79,645/- should not be recovered from UI by considering the sale price by buyer of Universal Sale Corporation. (c) Interest under Section 11AB penalty under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to be clubbed with UI by the second Commissioner one more unit was found to be independent. This would knock down the basis of the departments view of a More Group to be accepted entity. (b) The show cause notice admits. (i) UI to be proprietory concern of R.H. More started in 1982 had obtained a registration. (ii) UE the proprietory concern of Shri R.R. More was in existence during 92-93 to March 97, had no registration. (iii) UCEC is the proprietory concern of Mrs. R.R. More April, 94 to Feb., 97. (iv) MT is partnership of Shri R.H. More R.R. More 1994 to Dec., 1996. (v) RHMCE is a private limited Company incorporated in 22-1-96 which commenced manufacturing in Oct., 96 terminated the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary of Ms. D.R. More May, 95 to Jan., 97 S. No. 459/4/135 Warje 7 R.A. Engg. (RAE) Partnership of Shri R.H. More R.R. More Aug., 96 till date S. No. 325 Village Sangvi, Tal Khandala dist. Satara 8 Universal Sales Corpn. (USIC) (Trading firm) Proprietary of Shri A.R. More April, 97 till date S. No. 17 Warje While the Commissioner in the order dated 10-2-99, found UE to be a partnership of R.H. More R.R. More in Para 23 recorded inter alia - 23.....in the next year i.e. May 1995 a fourth unit was also opened from the same premises at Sl. No. 135 Warje Malwadi in the name of M/s. Universal Engineering Co. with Ms. Deepali R. More daughter of Shri R.H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubt the entrepreneurial ship of Ms. Deepal R. More, because she is a woman, or the Commissioner in the fresh adjudication has not applied his mind afresh. Either way, such order now impugned before us cannot be held to be an outcome of an unbiased fresh application of mind in remand. It has only packed the ingredients of an earlier quashed order in a new bottle. We do not and cannot uphold such efforts especially when they emerge out of gender bias. (c) The bias of the commissioner towards an educated son to be able to setup an independent unit UE, whose turnover cannot be clubbed with UI, the appellant herein, even when it was found to be a partnership of the appellant proprietor and his son (see para 22 of the order impugned) While ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e turnover has started paying duty should have cleared the clouds of suspicion in the departments mind of units being erected only to evade. If that was so R.A. Engineering of same father son partnership should have been dissolved before crossing the exemption threshold. The fact that it has not so, itself would place the reasons for the efforts of various assesses and Shri R.H. More individually to strive for the growth the abortive attempts to manufacture prosper cannot be newed only with the jaundiced eye of being a colourable device. The evidence of only certain incorrect stamps or correct stamps of precedes material will only exhibit failure of control system is closely held family business and not necessarily a desire to evade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mands cannot be upheld merely on the basis of direct supply of goods to Customers billing through Universal Sales Corporation owned by the other son A.R. More of the appellant. We find no reason not to accept this submission. The perusal of Annexure A to the notice does not bring out any charge that sales to this firm only were made there were no comparative sale price to independent buyers did not exist. We find force to this plea find no reason to upheld this demand. (f) When duty demands as arrived cannot be upheld the order is found to be unsustainable, no interest or penalty liability can be upheld. The confiscation under Rule 173Q(2) is to be set aside on merits. 3.1 In view of the findings the appeal is allowed aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
