9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r final disposal. 2. Heard learned A.R. who explained the case in detail and also submitted that the impugned order is sustainable and may be upheld. 3. The issue involved in this case is eligibility of benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 1.3.86 to the appellant. This exemption is available for SSI unit. The stand taken by the Revenue is that the clearances of two units, M/s Apex Electrostatics and M/s Dhar Transformers are to be clubbed for the purpose of determination of eligibility for exemption. Besides eligibility for exemption, the issue of wrong availment of Cenvat Credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules is also to be considered. Initially both the units were functioning under separate places and in the year 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for their products, such a Apex Brand. The brand name of Apex is of M/s Apex Electricals (P) Ltd., Baroda, a sister concern of the two firms, since M/s Apex Electricals (P) Ltd., Baroda are not eligible for and not availing the notification No. 175/86 the two units are not eligible for this notification. (vii) The goods manufactured and shown in RGI register of one unit are transferred to the account of the other unit, after a few days. (viii) Raw material from the store of one noticee was cleared on the gate pass issued by the other noticee as evidenced from GPI No. 387 dated 22.8.1989 of M/s Dhar and GPI No. 140 dated 22.8.1989 of M/s Apex. (ix) The pattern of power consumption further lends support to the allegation that M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission. Just because both the factories are situated in the same compound, it is not that the raw materials should not be stocked separately and for the purpose of transportation such common storage is required. The claim is that on several occasions, common transportation and common discharge facilities may be required to be utilized is very weak defense and therefore, we find that this finding has not been countered effectively by the appellant at all. 5.2. As regards transfer of Rs. 50,000/- on one occasion, instead of explaining how that occasion arose and whether the amount repaid by other unit in whose account it was accounted, the appellants are simply stating that one such instance cannot be a ground for clubbing. In the absence o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... November 1987. 5.4. As regards use of common brand name, it has been stated that Apex is not a registered brand name of any one. However, the fact that whether brand name is registered is not relevant has not been taken note of and has not been explained by the appellant. In fact, they have stated that the use of brand name is not a criteria till 30.9.1987 since there was no concept at that time. However, why is not relevant has not been explained. In this case, period is from 20.11.86 to 18.7.89) 5.5. As regards transfer of goods from one unit to the other, it was stated that there was only one entry and one instance because of clerical error. However the details of when it was noticed and when it was rectified is not forthcoming in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
