TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 298
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion Certificate bearing No.AABCD8219 J XM 001. Investigations were initiated against DEPL by Preventive Wing of Central Excise, Mysore during September 2007 alleging clandestine clearance of excisable goods and evasion of Central Excise duty. During the course of investigation, the records of DEPL and an adjoining unit by name Dapson Engineers (DE for short) which was a proprietary concern were seized and statements of Shri Chritopher Roach, MD of DEPL and proprietor of DE were recorded. After completion of investigation process, a show-cause notice was issued and the impugned order has been passed wherein it has been held that the two units viz. DEPL and DE depend upon one another and did not exist individually as they did not have the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the premises registered in the name of M/s DEPL. * Both the units, i.e., M/s DE and M/s DEPL were accessible internally through a gate situated within the premises. * Machines, raw-materials, work-in-process and the finished goods were shifted in between the two units through the internal access available without the cover of documents / permissions. * All the personnel working in M/s DEPL were actually employees of M/s DE. * M/s DE, had employed 16 Engineers/Supervisors, four office staff and 30 permanent workers arid various contractual workers. * No payments have been made or received among the units (M/s DE & M/s DEPL) towards the above employees. * The records pertaining to both M/s DEPL and M/s DE were maintained at the office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... * Payments on behalf of M/s DEPL have been made by M/s DE and also certain amounts receivable by M/s DE have been credited to M/s DEPL account and also transfer of cash from one company's account to the other. * M/s DEPL have informed their bankers that M/s DE was their own division. * Directions have been issued by M/s DEPL to their bankers to accept cheques which were in the name of M/s DE and to credit the amounts into their (M/s DEPL) account. * M/s DEPL have directed their bankers to furnish bank guarantee from their bank account for liabilities of M/s DE. * Building tax / Khatha change charges of M/s DEPL has been paid by M/s DE, amounts payable by M/s DE towards purchases made by M/s DE have been paid by M/s DEPL, VAT liabil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oor between the two units and labour was common, there is no evidence to show that the manufacture was undertaken by DEPL. If machinery and labour were in the name of DE and they were installed in the premises registered in the name of DE by the Revenue, question arises how could DEPL be considered as manufacturer. Further the boiler licence is in the name of DE and it is also an observation by the Revenue as recorded as part of evidence that DEPL did not own any machinery of their own. How DEPL can become the manufacturer and DE a dummy unit when DE had the labour and machinery and DEPL did not have anything is a question for which no answers are forthcoming. The one question that arose in our mind and probably that could be the reason for....