Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 231 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (9) TMI 231 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - SSI exemption - Notification no.175/86-CE - eligibility for entitlement to benefit - impugned order has held that these two appellants are not independent units during 2000-2001 and their value of clearances is to be clubbed for deciding on the eligibility of SSI exemption during the said period of 2001-2002 - Held that:- even after April, 2001, there is no change in the ground realities. May be on paper, these two appellants are separate but in practi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. These two appellants are two units only on paper but in practice and as per ground realities, they are one business only, which is very much evident and has been clearly pointed out by the Commissioner's impugned order. - Decided against the appellant - Excise Appeal Nos. 90 - 91/2009 Ex. (DB) - Final Order No.53042-53043/2016 - Dated:- 12-8-2016 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Shri B. L. Narasimhan, Advocate for the appellant Shri R. K. Manjhi, DR 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

aid period of 2001-2002. The impugned order holds that M/s. MMPL is the main unit and M/s. AMMPL was created to avail the benefit of SSI exemption. 2. Both the appellants have been represented by ld. Advocate, Shri B.L. Narsimhan, who has inter alia submitted as follows: (i) The appellants factories are in different premises, which are adjacent to each other. (ii) They are holding separate individual registrations with the Central Excise Department. (iii) They are working independently and are r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fice space on monthly payments to AMMPL. The learned Advocate quotes from Para-7 of the Settlement Commission s order, which inter alia says that there are a number of facts in favour of the applicant and the only ground against them is that certain facilities were commonly used by both the units who had two common Directors and a common office which was located at the premises of AMM. 3. The respondent is Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I, who was represented by the ld. AR, Shri R.K. Man .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he impugned order makes very clear. The impugned order points out that their separation has been created artificially with an intention to avail the benefit of SSI exemption only. The impugned order points out in its para-20 that the MOU signed between the two appellants does not have vital details. The impugned order mentions in para-20 that there cannot be a rent agreement without details, area and specification of the property to be given on rent between two independent companies/ persons but .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version