TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ritsar (hereinafter referred to as NPPML), M/s. Narindera Paper Mills Ltd., Sangrana Shahib, Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as NPML), M/s. Narindera Paper Products Ltd., Sangrana Shahib, Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as NPPL), and M/s. Charan Kamal Card Board Paper Mills Ltd., Sangrana Shahib, Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as CKML), are engaged in manufacture of craft paper, duplex paper and paper-board articles, chargeable to Central Excise Duty under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise and Tariff. They have separate central excise registrations. Each in these four appellants are private limited companies. Shri S.S. Dhingra and Shri Narindera Singh are the common shareholders in all these four companies and they are admittedly promoters of this company. The directors of NPML are Shri S.S. Dhingra, Shri Narindera Singh and Mrs. Jatinder Kaur wife of Shri S.S. Dhingra. The Directors of NPPL are Shri S.S. Dhingra and Shri Narindera Singh and Mrs. Jatinder Kaur (wife of Shri S.S. Dhingra). Similarly, the Directors of CKML are Shri S.S. Dhingra, Shri Narindera Singh and Joginder Singh brother of Shri S.S. Dhingra and the Dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued to NPPML, NPML, NPPL and CKML for : (a) demand of Central Excise Duty along with interest amounting to Rs. 2,39,66,628/-, Rs. 1,77,08,853/-, Rs. 2,49,72,389/- and Rs. 1,19,01,067/- respectively along with interest, (b) imposition of penalty of equal amount on them under the provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173Q(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 25 (1) of Central Excise Rules ,2001-2002, and (c) revoking the separate central excise registration numbers obtained by the appellant-units from the Department by suppressing the facts. 2.2 Subsequently two more show cause notices dated 2-5-05 for demanding total duty of Rs. 26,99,075/- for the period from 1-4-04 to 31-3-05 and dated 30-11-06 for the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 17,33,587/- for the period from 1-4-05 to 31-3-06 were issued on the same ground. These three show cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner vide order-in-original No. 8-10/CE/JAL/07 dated 28-3-07 by which the duty demands were confirmed along with the interest and penalties under Section 11AC were imposed on the appellant-companies. 2.3 The appellants filed appeals before the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f treats these four appellant-companies as separate entities and if they are separate entities for the purpose of duty exemption, they must be treated accordingly. Tribunal in the case of CCE, Madurai v. Rajalakshmi Paper Mills Ltd. reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 161 has held that so long as the units are separately registered, they must be granted separate benefits. (4) Each of these four units was functioning independently. The allegation that they were using each others digesters or that the production of one unit was being shown in the name of other unit are factually incorrect. The department s allegation regarding inter-dependence of the four units and inter-connectivity between them is factually incorrect. In fact the four units were manufacturing different products. 3.1.1 In view of the above, it was pleaded that the appellants have strong prima facie case and hence the pre-deposit of duty demands, interest and penalties may be waived for hearing of these appeals and the recovery thereof stayed. 3.2 Shri Surinder Shah, the learned Departmental Representative, opposing the appellant s plea for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit of duty demands and interest c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acture of the excisable goods and beside this, these four units were having a common tool room/workshop for maintenance of plant and machinery, (c) In the office premises belonging to NPPML, the records and documents pertaining to accounts, sales, purchase, excise, banks, etc., in respect of NPPML, NPML, NPPL and CKML were found to be maintained and beside this, the attendance register of the employees of the four units also were found to be common, (d) At the time of officer s visit to the factory, while no manufacturing activity was found in the shed of NPML and NPPL, it was found that the digester of these two units were being used for manufacture of pulp, which was being supplied to other two units and at the same time manufacture and clearance of paper and paper-board was being shown in the name of NPML and NPPL, (e) The wheat straw a major raw material for each of these four units was common and there was absolutely no segregation of the stock of wheat straw of different units and similarly the stock of waste paper, another main raw material, was also common and it was being fed to different units by a single set of conveyor system, (f) On scrutiny of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s unit was showing the production of excisable goods during this period. Similarly there was no consumption of electricity by NPPL during April, 2003 to May, 2003 and December, 2003 to February 2004 but it was still showing production of excisable goods during these periods. Though it has been explained by Shri Madan Mohan, authorised signatory of NPPL that during the period when there was no electricity consumption, electricity generated by the generator had been used, he could not produce any bills regarding purchase of diesel for running the generator. 6. In view of the above referred materials on record, we are of the prima facie view that NPPML, NPML, NPPL and CKML which are the companies owned and controlled the members of the same family were for all practical purposes being run as one factory and the same had been split up into four entities only to avail of the duty exemption. In view of this, we are of the view that this is not a case for total waiver from the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The appellants are, therefore, directed to deposit the entire amount of duty demand confirmed against each one of them within the period of eight weeks from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
