TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at all these three units are independent on the following findings : 23. All the three noticees in their defence submission mainly contended that the allegation that three units were one and situated in same premises and having many things common and using common brand name/logo - GOYAL is incorrect, erroneous and baseless as the units at the material time were three different entities, registered separately in March, 1944 when S.S.I. benefit was not available. The word Bifurcation means Divide the things and here the unit is not bifurcated just to avail the benefit of SSI. All three units came into existence on 1-5-87, 23-6-88, and 14-9-88. And Excise duty was imposed on 1-3-94 and benefit of SSI was extended to them in April, 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin the knowledge of department. As such proviso to Section 11-A(1) could not be made applicable. The SCN beyond six months period is time barred. 3. The adjudicating authority has held on the time bar issue as under : Accordingly, as discussed above the fact was totally in the knowledge of the department in as much as all the three units were under the control of one RO and the monthly returns R.T. 12 filed separately by all three noticees have been finally assessed by the proper officer from time to time. As such I am inclined to accept the defence contention. And that in view of above and even in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court I hold that the proviso to Section 11-A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three units are functioning independently prior to duty being levied on the products manufactured by them. He relies upon the C.B.E.C. Circular dt. 29-5-92 for proposition that when units are Public/Private Ltd. Companies, incorporated under Companies Act, they are to be considered as separate units and their clearances should not be clubbed. He relied on the judgments in the case of Pudumjee Agro Inds. Ltd. v. CCE - 1997 (20) RLT 407 (CEGAT), Pimpri Gases v. CCE - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 474 (T). 7. After having gone through the case carefully, we find that learned adjudicating authority has clearly held that all these three units were functioning independently prior to imposition of excise duty on the product manufactured by them. He has clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
