TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and Sh. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. C. Changsen, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. ORDER The above appeal is filed by Revenue challenging the order passed by Commissioner who dropped the proceedings initiated for duty demand of ₹ 15,929/- along with interest and imposition of equal amount of penalty on appellants besides separate penalty of ₹ 5000/- on M/s Andhra Poly Pack. 2. The respondent, M/S Vizag Poly Packaging Industries (VPPI) are manufacturers of HDPE/PP woven bags/sacks and is availing concessional rate of duty under SSI exemption. It is an unregistered partnership firm established in 1995, and consists of two partners viz: Shri Pradip Kumar Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es proposing penalty. After adjudication, the Commissioner dropped proceedings initiated pertaining to charge of clubbing of clearances of two units. A demand of ₹ 15,929/- was confirmed on the charge of clandestine clearances by respondent along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty. A penalty of ₹ 5000/- was imposed on M/s Andhra Poly Pack was suppressing value of clearances. The Revenue is in appeal against this order. 4. The learned AR, Ms C. Changsen strongly contended that there was sufficient evidence that M/s Andhra Poly Pack was dummy unit of respondent. She argued that on verification of records it was revealed that the two units have mutuality of interest in business and are inter-related to each other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds of M/s Andhra Poly Pack is kept in their premises since M/s Andhra Poly Pack does not have office of their own. The weighing scale, telephone are used by M/s Andhra Poly Pack, but no charge is collected. That M/s Andhra Poly Pack is a proprietorship concern owned by his wife. 7. The commissioner, in the impugned order has elaborately discussed the statements, evidence and the legal position on the issue. The Commissioner has observed as under: In this case, the issue is of clubbing of a partnership firm and a proprietary firm in which the partners and the proprietor are blood relations. I find that the Courts and the Tribunal have set aside the orders on clubbing mainly on the ground that the department has failed to prove that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndhra Poly Pack. 8. The Commissioner has quoted from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Renu Tandon [1993 (66) ELT 375 (Raj)] as below: Value of clearances of the two units cannot be clubbed together and the two units cannot be treated as one unit merely because of proximity of relationship or the situation of the two factories or because there are some common employees unless there is a clear and specific evidence that there is mutuality of business interest between the two units and that both have interest in the business of each other or they have common funding and financial flow-back. In the present case, the most important aspect about having common funding and financial flow-back is missing and therefore, to wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
