TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1023X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the units, whose clearances are sought to be clubbed with the clearances of the appellant company, a unilateral decision cannot be taken that all the units are owned and controlled by one person only. For clubbing the different units for the purpose of SSI exemption, the only requirement is that the units should be owned by one person and for this purpose, it is absolutely necessary that if the clearances of a unit A are sought be clubbed with the clearances of the units, B, C and D and these units are owned by different persons, show cause notices must be issued to B, C and D, whose clearances are sought to be clubbed with the clearances of Unit A. We are supported in this view by the judgement of Calcutta High Court in the case of Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any, a partnership firm of Shri B.M. Garg and Shri V.P. Garg, M/s. Deepak Hinges Pvt. Ltd. with Shri B.M Garg and Shri V.P. Garg as Directors, M/s.Monika Steels Pvt. Ltd. with Shri B.M. Garg and Shri Satish Mittal as Directors, M/s.D.D. Hardware Pvt. Ltd. with Shri B.M. Garg and Ms. Rama Garg as Directors and M/s. D.P. Garg Exports Ltd. with Shri B.M. Garg and Shri D.Das as Directors. The Department accordingly seeks to club the clearances of the appellant with the clearances of the above mentioned six manufacturing units for determining their eligibility for SSI exemption. It is on this basis that the Addl. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 26.04.2010 confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 17,25,261/- against the appellants unit alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Honble Calcutta High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Diamond Scaffolding Company reported in 2011 (274) ELT 10 , M/s. Copier Force India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai reported in 2008 (231) ELT 224 , K.R. Balachandra Vs. CCE, Coimbatore reported in 2003 (151) ELT 68 and Poly Resins Vs. CCE, Chennai reported in 2003 (161) ELT 1136 and that in view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. Shri R.K. Grover, ld. Departmental Representative defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order and pleaded that non- issue of show cause notice to the above mentioned six manufacturing units/firms, whose clearances are sought to be clubbed with the clearances of the appellant company is not fatal t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irms was not fatal, as Shri B.M. Garg was holding the majority shares or was a partner in these private limited companies/firms and hence, non-issue of show cause notice has not vitiated proceedings and in this regard, he relies upon the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Diwan Saheb Fashions Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2013 (288) ELT 529 (Tribunal-Delhi), wherein it was held that proceedings were not vitiated even though no show cause notice was issued to the units whose clearance was to be clubbed, as their proprietors / partners were fully aware of the proposal to club clearances. In our view, the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Diwan Saheb Fashions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case, as as discussed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
