Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Apex Electrostatics Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-I

2015 (11) TMI 668 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Denial of SSI Exemption - Clubbing of clearances - units situated within same premises - sharing of common brand name, infrastructure facility and expenses - dummy units - eligibility of benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 1.3.86 to the appellant - Held that:- 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 seve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

th 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 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enefit. However, there was no evidence of payment from one firm to the other has been brought out towards occupied space. It has also not been explained how travelling expenses, contribution of provident fund, salary, etc. have been made by one unit for the other. - appellants have not been able to show that both the units were functioning independently and were capable of functioning independently. In the circumstances, the appeal has no merit - Decided against assessee. - E/23/2007-DB - Final .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inal 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ction as to which unit they belong to. (ii) M/s Dhar tendered an amount of ₹ 50,000/- vide TR6 Challan No. 005 dated 13.6.1988 in Central Bank of India, Dhar and the said TR6 Challan was accounted for in the PLA account of M/s Apex. (iii) The land and the buildings where both M/s Apx and M/s Dhar are functioning are owned by M/s Apex. M/s Dhar has taken part of it on lease and using the same premises of M/s Apex without any demarcation of the premises and also using the plant and machinery .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

M/s Dhar is not having any filteration plant, 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ial manufacturing process in as much as M/s Dhar, which has produced more goods, has consumed less power than M/s Apex, which has produced comparatively less goods. (x) Hindu undivided families of Shri Nayak and Sanghavi formed the said two partnership firms. In both the concerns Shri R.N. Sanghavi and Shri S.N. Nayak were Kartas and their interest were same in both the firms. The business of both the firms was common. (xi) Both the firms are having common infrastructural facilities like Telepho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es, contribution in provident fund, salary, wages and excise duty. Such transactions were in fact never shown in the books of account of both the firms. 5.1. On going through the records and the Appeal Memorandum, we find that as regards the first 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 a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g 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 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 enti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

occupied by M/s Dhar; whether the machinery installed in M/s Dhar was enough and what is the machinery required and what is available and what is found in the Mahazar was not explained at all. The facts that there was no power connection up to November 1987 and thereafter power consumption was negligible have not been explained properly. While lower power consumption was explained that M/s Dhar was only assembling the products, there was no evidence was produced to show where from M/s Dhar was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version