9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was justified. To come to the above conclusion, the ld. Com missioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant firm and proprietor of M/s. Swan Paint & Varnish Works, are the members of the same family, who run business in different names. M/s. Swan Paint & Varnish Works started manufacture when the appellants' firm stopped manufacture, reaching the exemption limit as SSI. He examined the agreement between the parties i.e. the appellant and M/s. Swan Paint & Varnish Works and arrived at the instance of the appellant firm, who supplied raw materials and specification also. It was his further finding that the goods manufactured by M/s. SPVW were sold by the appellants. He was also of opinion that same family members in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was purely on commercial expediency and not to take any undue advantage. No doubt, M/s. Swan Paint & Varnish Works was to manufacture paints against the order placed by the appellant, at the initial stage, but the cost of input was borne by manufacturer i.e. M/s. Swan Paint & Varnish Works and the goods were billed. Wherever raw materials were supplied by the appellant, cost thereof was adjusted in the bills raised by M/s. SPVW against the appellant. He further submitted that apart from manufacturing goods of the appellants, M/s. SPVW had also manufactured and sold its own goods to others during the period 1991-92 to 1994-95 as under :- YEAR BPC OTHERS (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) 1991-1992 6,69,987.00 3,360.00 1992-1993 9,07,042.00 1,19, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kherjee, who was partner in the appellant firm, retired w.e.f. 1-4-1993. Annexure - A dated 30-4-1993 annexed to the written submissions was the intimation of retirement of Shri Achinta Kumar Mukherjee, addressed to the Range Superintendent. There was an endorsement on 4-5-1993 over that Annexure by Excise authorities asking for submission of copy of registration certificate, partnership deed, for amendment. There is no material on record to prove that either income tax or sales tax authorities or any other statutory authority had at any time found interconnected relation between the parties and whether Revenue/State was prejudiced for their interconnection. Location of both units was also found to be in different places and premises which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctories have a separate entrance, there is a passage in between and they are not complimentary to each nor they are subsidiary to each other. The end product is also different, one manufacturers duplex board and the other manufactures paper. They are separately registered with the Central Excise Department. The staff is separate, their management is separate. It is also not the case of revenue that end product of one factory is raw material for the other factory. From the above facts, it is apparent that there is no commonality between the two factories, both are separate establishments run by separate Managers though at the apex level it is maintained by the appellant company. There are separate staff, separate finished goods. Simply becau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
