TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lized is very weak defense and therefore, we find that this finding has not been countered effectively by the appellant at all. - In the absence of any evidence to show that this amount had been paid back by other unit in whose account it was wrongly credited and details are not made available in the Appeal Memorandum, we have to uphold the stand taken by the Revenue that the appellants were treating both the units as a single entity. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter was listed on six times and on none of the occasions, the appellant was present or there was any request for adjournment. Therefore, appeal is taken up for 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compressor, wire drawing machine, welding and drilling machine etc., which shows that they cannot undertake essential manufacturing process. (vi) Both the firms have got common Brand 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 notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst ground, the appellants submission is that both the units have separate registration, staff, machinery, project and records and therefore, a common storage cannot be a ground. We are not convinced with this submission. 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 ₹ 50,000/- on one occasion, instead of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s Dhar was getting components. No supporting evidence for components purchased has been produced. No explanation has been given as regards the facts as to how M/s Dhar could provide in absence of power connection prior to 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 tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
