Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

NMS Babu, Pradeep Jaipuria, Margo Biocontrols P. Ltd., Praveen Jaipuria, P.J. Margo P. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise

SSI exemption - clubbing of clearances - holding-subsidiary relationship - suppression of facts - Held that: - the value of manufacturing and clearances of exempted goods from any unit has to be excluded, when the clearances of both the units are clubbed to determine the eligibility of SSI benefit to the appellants - we are in agreement with this plea of the appellants that there has not been any suppression of material facts by the appellants, when the two appellants viz., PJM and MBC are under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ther words, the liability of Central Excise Duty has to be decided for the period of one year preceding the date(s) of the show-cause notice issued to the appellants. - The matter requires quantification of liability of duty of Central Excise, if any, and for imposition of penalties, if any, in respect of the impugned periods - April 1997 to March 2003, for which respective show-cause notices were issued to the appellants. This will require detailed verification of figures and documents at t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

21155 -21159 / 2016 - Dated:- 17-11-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member Shri V. Raghuraman & Shri Raghavendra, Advocates For the Appellant Shri Mohammed Yousuf, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok K. Arya 1. The present matter earlier came before this Tribunal against Order-in-Appeal No.9/2004.BNG.II dated 6.10.2004 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II and the Tribunal vide its Final Order No.1837-1841/2005 dated 25.10.2005 set .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e goods manufactured by the holding company and the subsidiary company is or is not made out on facts. (ii) As to whether or not there has been suppression of material facts by both the aforesaid companies. 1.2 Consequent to above directions of Hon ble Supreme Court in respect of two issues mentioned above, the matter has been taken up for decision afresh by this Tribunal. The following are the appellants and Revenue is the respondent. Sl. No. Appellants Appeal No. 1 NMS Babu E/1407/2004 2 Prade .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vt Ltd., (referred as PJM) is located in Plot No. 3A, Antharasanahalli Indl Area, Tumkur. They are engaged in the manufacture of water soluble Neem Extracts, Neem oil, Neem Husk, Neem De-oiled cake and Econeem. (ii) M/s. Margo Bio Controls Pvt. Ltd. (referred as MBC) is located in No.64, Antharasanahalli Indl Area, Tumkur. MBC is wholly owned subsidiary of PJM having separate factory premises and is engaged in manufacture of Ecoderma, Ecohume, Echohume G, Delfin, Heligard etc. Both factories are .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) The details of show cause notices issued to PJM and MBC along with demands under various allegations are given as under: SCN NO& Date Demand confirmed by Commissioner in OIO 9/2004 Dt 12.10.2004 PJM MBC Total Demand PJM&MBC Clubbing of clearance MBC-Clubbing clearance Clandestine-Mfr- Econeem Pheromon Repacking Ecoderma Ecohume C.No: V/38/15/6/2000 C.1/97 dt. 12.03.2001 8,69,919 4,73,244 7,04,907 2,24,720 7,16,943 2252,327 52,42,060 C.No: V/38/3/11/98 Prev 1761/01 dt 26.06.2001 15,00,4 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rred order of Commissioner demanding excise duty on Clubbing of Clearances along with other issues viz., clandestine manufacture of Econeem, repacking of Pheromones, re-classification of Ecoderma, Ecohume. (V-A) Hon ble Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1837-1841/2005 dated 25.10.2005 allowed the appeals of the appellant dropping all the duty demands and penalties. (V-B) Aggrieved by the above referred Final Order dated 25.10.2005 issued by Hon ble CESTAT, the respondent-Commissioner of Central Exci .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ereto, directly arrived at a conclusion that the manufacture of the excisable goods by both the holding company and the subsidiary company cannot be clubbed only on the basis of a circular dated 29.05.1992. Considering the decision of Supreme Court in CCE, New Delhi Vs. Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd., & Ors 2004 (7) SCC 569 which held that the above referred circular would have no relevance to the notifications other than the Notification mentioned therein and therefore, Supreme Court he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

de out on facts: a. Contradiction in findings given by the respondent. On the one hand MBC is termed as dummy unit or fagade of PJM and vice versa, on the other hand duty is demanded on both units PJM and MBC recognizing them as separate companies. This itself shows that the units are different. b. Duty in such cases can only be demanded from principal unit and not from both units where duty is demanded from both units, it could be inferred that Revenue has recognized that both unitsare independ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

production in August 1998. As the holding company was established 3 years prior to incorporation of MBC and the latter only commenced its manufacturing activity in 1998, it is factually and legally untenable to term MBC as dummyunit of PJM. In support, the following case laws are cited: i. CCE, Ludhiana Vs. Jagatjit Agro Industries 2014 (309) ELT 301 (Tri. Del.) ii. Affirmed in CCE Vs. Saron Mechanical Works 2016 (332) ELT 80 (P & H) d. No clubbing of clearances could be made between two li .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Del.) e. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd.: 2004 (171) E.L.T. 155 (S.C.) in the context of clubbing of clearances held that the pervasive financial and management control are prima facie indicators of interdependence between the units. However, it was held that whether a unit is dummy is to be based on the facts of each case and there could not be any generalization or rule of universal application. f. It is submitted that the holding company PJM and M .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

low back. Departments letter dated 15.9.98 was replied to by appellant stating no flow back and department has not led any evidence to the contrary. j. PJM & MBC have separate manpower. MBC has substantial work force which is evident from the s0alaries and wages mentioned in Balance Sheet. k. The sales wing of MBC is headed by a Marketing Manager and it also has six Marketing Regional Managers located at Poona, Baroda, Calcutta, Zirakpur, Hyderabad, Coimbatore and Karnataka. It also has a se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of products manufactured by them viz., Ecoderma, Ecohume and Ecohume G are exempted goods. ii. Consequently, the value of clearances of these exempted goods has to be excluded from the clearances of MBC when it is clubbed with that of PJM for determining as to whether combined value of clearances has crossed ₹ 300 lakhs during the preceding financial year. iii. It is submitted that combined value of clearances is well within ₹ 300 lakhs till 2000-01 as it has crossed ₹ 3 crore .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

BC is intimated vide letter dated 20.07.1998. b. Application dated 10.8.1998 for registration under Central Excise. c. Marketing pattern filed u/r 173C (3A) indicating routing of goods through related party (MBC). d. Price declaration dated 14.10.1996. e. Copy of Dept Letter dated 15.9.98 & reply by PJM. f. Appellant had filed price declaration and other details starting from 1996 and continued to file during 1998 as well. g. Show cause notice dated 12.3.2001 has been issued two years after .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

its were set up, all sold goods at a deflated price to BSL which controls the finance and raw material procurement. BSL resold the said goods at a very high price. By depressing the price, the other units could take the benefit of SSI exemption. In this factual scenario, the clubbing was ordered. On the contrary, in the instant appeal, as is evident from the price declaration filed by PJM and PJM the holding company has sold certain goods through the subsidiary and paid duty at the price declare .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t manufacturer being holding and subsidiary with their own infrastructure, the position that all subsidiary factories belong to the holding company is wrong and against the definition of manufacturein Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. (d) It is submitted that plethora of case laws, especially in the case of CCE vs. Aschem Agrotech P. Ltd. 2015 (315) E.L.T. 618 (Tri.-Bang.) clearly show that holding and subsidiary companies are entitled to SSI exemption notification separately. In the sai .....

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 have to be clubbed as per the contents of the relevant SSI Notification No.175/86-CE dated 1.3.86; No.7/97-CE dated 10.3.1997; No.8/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000. (ii) The SSI Notification mentions that wherever manufacturing is done by one manufacturer in one or more factories, if aggregate value of the clearances from these different factories exceeds the value limit given in the Notification, duty of Central Excise becomes chargeable. (iii) Reference is made to Circular No.6/1992 dated 29.5.1992 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d. vs. CCE, Delhi: 2014 (313) E.L.T. 87 (Tri.-Del.) b. NEC Industrial Project vs. Commissioner : 2015 (325) E.L.T. A145 (S.C.) c. Euro Scaff (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner: 2015 (323) E.L.T. A124 (S.C.) d. Premium Suiting (P) Ltd. vs. CCE: 2016 (331) E.L.T. 589 (All.) e. Modern Engg. Plastics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Trichy: 2009 (243) E.L.T. 289 (Tri.-Chennai) f. Parle Bisleri Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad: 2011 (263) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.) g. Apex Electrostatics vs. CCE, Hyderabad-I: 2015 (330) E.L.T. 701 ( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rol over MBC. (vii) The Boards Circular dated 29.5.1992 relates to independent limited companies and not to holding and subsidiary companies. PGM and MBC are not two different limited companies. 5. We have carefully considered the facts on record, the submissions made by both sides and the case laws cited. 6. The Hon ble Supreme Court has remanded the matter to decide the matter afresh on the following two issues: i. As to whether any case for clubbing of excisable goods manufactured by the hold .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Both have separate factory premises within a distance of 1.5 km from each other. (ii) PJM, holding company came to existence in 1991 and MBC, subsidiary company came into existence in 1994. (iii) The units of PJM & MBC have separate central excise registration, sales tax registration and income tax and SSI registration and have separate plants and machineries. (iv) PJM and MBC are two separate private limited companies under Companies Act. (v) PJM and MBC in general have separate manpower/wo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

PJM. (ii) Administrative office and branches/depots are in common premises (iii) Entire quantity of one the products econeem manufactured by PJM is sold through MBC and no commission is paid to MBC by PJM. (iv) Entire funding to float MBC is done by PJM only. 7.3 We find that by and large PJM and MBC have separate existence in terms of separate factory premises, separate machinery, separate product items and so on. However, there are some key features/elements, whereby this separation (separate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nse from Ecotech International and Technology for manufacturing neem based products, which was passed on to PJM without any consideration. (iii-A) The appellants argue that MBC is allowing PJM to manufacture Econeem and in return for using technology PJM sells all Econeem to MBC. (iii-B) The argument of the appellants is that commercially there is no sense for the MBC to pay PJM for using technology and then the same product to be bought from PJM by paying the price. (iii-C) Above arguments of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

no consideration is paid from one party to another again indicate that PJM and MBC are one and the same. (iv) The appellants submit that Revenues contention that PJM is not charging any rent for leasing of factory premises is not correct as there is supplementary deed dated 6.7.1999, where there is provision of lease rent from MBC to PJM. (iv.1)The appellants submission that they are giving lease rent by supplementary deed 6.7.1999 cannot be the sole basis to treat two companies as separate, wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er words 100% funding or 100% equity of MBC is held by PJM only. Further when the authorised signatory, who looks after day-to-day work is one common person only, even then considering other facts mentioned above, these two appellants having separate existence under Company Law cannot become entitled to the benefit of two separate SSI units under law of Central Excise. (vi) Here the key factors and key features discussed above lead us to conclude that productions in these two units viz., PJM and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mpted goodsfrom any unit (PJM and MBC) has to be excluded, when the clearances of both the units are clubbed to determine the eligibility of SSI benefit to the appellants. 7.4 We have held that both the companies are one and the same. The principal company is PJM and it will be liable for payment of duty of Central Excise, if any, for the clearances made by both the units. We take support from the Ministry of Finance, CBEC Circular No.6/1992 dated 26.5.1992. The text of the Direction issued unde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ch is to be taken into consideration for purposes of interpreting the exemption notification. 7.4.1 With reference to above clause 4, the facts have indicated that manufacturing from these two factories of PJM and MBC respectively have been made on behalf of the same manufacturer, who is PJM only. It is clarified that under Companies Law, PJM and MBC have got independent existence but the facts on record, where key features like common authorised signatory, common person looking after day-to-day .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of British Scaffolding India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) gives us support for above conclusions as it is applicable for the present facts though there has been no depreciation of value by any of these companies. In this decision, CESTAT has also referred to Hon ble Supreme Courts decisions for support and in this regard, we agree that those case laws are applicable to the present case also. In this regard, we refer to the observations made by CESTAT Delhi in the said case. The CESTAT Delhi inter alia has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on by a manufacturer from one or more factories during the preceding financial year does not exceed a particular threshold limit, as mentioned in the Notification. Thus, when a manufacturer has four factories located at different locations, and the SSI Exemption Notification prescribes nil rate of duty for first clearances of specified goods worth ₹ 50 lakhs in a financial year, each of these factories would not be separately eligible for full duty exemption in respect of its first clearan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d limit, none of the units would be eligible for SSI Exemption even if the value of clearances for home consumption of all excisable goods made by each individual unit during the preceding financial year is well within the threshold limit for SSI exemption. It may happen that a manufacture may have several factories located in different states falling under the jurisdiction of different Commissioners of Central Excise. If each of these factories was availing the SSI Exemption separately and if i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arise, as in the scheme of collection of Central Excise duty, as laid down in the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder, the collection of duty is manufacturing unit wise and if a manufacturer has two or more factories located at separate locations, each unit is required to obtain separate Central Excise registration and is assessed to duty separately by the jurisdictional central excise officers. If there is short payment of duty by different units of a manufacturer on account .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tuation when on investigation, only one unit is found to be actually functioning and other units are found to be just non-functional fake units established just to show bogus production and clearances in their name. 7.1 However in most of the cases, the fact of common ownership of different units by a person is not so obvious and may be carefully camouflaged. For example - if there is a manufacturing unit of a proprietorship concern of a person X, there is a second manufacturing unit owned by 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

by the same person, for the purpose of SSI Exemption. 7.1.1 While a company is a legal person entirely distinct from its shareholders, in terms of Apex Courts Judgment in case of Income Tax Commissioner, Madras v. Meenakshi Mills, Madurai, reported in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 819, in certain exceptional cases, the court is entitled to lift the veil of corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind the legal facade and that the court has powers to disregard the corporate entit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, reported in 1986 (157) ITR-77 (S.C.), relying upon its earlier judgment in case of Medowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO, reported in 1985 154 ITR-148, 161 (S.C.) has held that even if companies are distinct legal entities having separate existence, this is not the end of the matter and it is the duty of the Court in every case, where ingenuity is expended, to get behind the smokescreen and discover the true state of affairs. Thus, the principle of lifting the corporate veil for discovering the true .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n on lifting the corporate veil it is found that only one person/company has extraordinary interest and pervasive control over the financial matters and management of other companies, irrespective of the latter having separate sales tax, income tax and central excise registration, their clearances have to be clubbed for determining their eligibility for the SSI Exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E. In this regard, Para 87 of the judgment is reproduced below :- Whether there is inter-dependence an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nies, it is on record that the unsecured loans advanced by MACL to the three companies were substantially heavy amounts as on 1-4-1998. NGCPL received an amount of ₹ 1.55 crores. About 14 lakhs appeared to have been paid after the issue of show cause notice. Loans advanced to NGCPL was about ₹ 52 lakhs while to SCGCPL it was about ₹ 65 lakhs. The finding of the Commissioner that the financial assistance from the financial institutions were availed with the aid and assistance of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

receipts were paid as lease amount to MACL. Here again, the under-valuation aspect assumes importance. While the supply by MACL to three companies was ₹ 0.50 per unit, the sale price by the three companies was ₹ 5 per unit. It is on record that accounts were kept by common staff and marketing was done under the supervision of a person who belongs to the same group of concerns. The amounts have been collected by an employee of MACL. The so-called Directors of the companies were undisp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

three companies under the sales tax and income tax authorities have to be considered in the background of factual position noted above. When the corporate veil is lifted what comes into focus is only the shadow and not any substance about the existence of the three companies independently. The Circular No. 6/92, dated 29-5-1992 has no relevance because it related to Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 and did not relate to Notification No. 1/93. The extended period of limitation was cl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mpanies as manufacturers to avail the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 1/93. Same view has been expressed by the Apex Court in its judgment in case of Supreme Washers Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). 7.1.2The Boards Circular No. 6/92, dated 29-5-1992 clarifying that limited companies, whether public limited or private limited are separate entities and each such limited company is a manufacturer by itself and would be entitled for SSI Exemption separately, has not considered the principle of lifting .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

upholding the principle of lifting of corporate veil the Apex Court taking note of the Boards Circular No. 6/92, dated 29-5-1992, had remanded the matter to the Tribunal for examining the applicability of this circular, since this circular being contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Income Tax Commissioner, Madras v. Meenakshi Mills, Madurai (supra), M/s. Calcutta Chromotype v. CCE (supra), Delhi Development Authority v. Skippe Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (supra), Associat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

se entities are to be clubbed for the purpose of determining their eligibility for SSI Exemption by treating them as the units of only one manufacturer, even if those units are owned by different public limited companies, private limited companies or partnership firms. If on clubbing their clearances during the preceding financial year, the aggregate value of the clearances is found to be exceeding the threshold limit for SSI Exemption, the SSI Exemption would have to be denied to each of them 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

to 7 observes as under: 5. The extract of the relevant notification that was applicable during the period in question, namely, Notification No. 7 of 1997, dated 1st March, 1997 is extracted hereunder :- The exemption contained in this notification shall apply only subject to the following conditions, namely :- (i) (ii) ... (iii) The aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption (including clearances for export to Bhutan or Nepal) by a manufacturer from one or more fa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nufacturer has two factories. One factory is engaged in the manufacture of cloth and the second factory is engaged in the manufacture of Polymer Vinyl Acetate, etc. Both the goods manufactured in two separate factories are excisable goods. The exemption therefore can be claimed only if the aggregate value of the clearances of all excisable goods does not exceed ₹ 3 crores. The fact that the two factories are of one manufacturer is clear from the fact that common balance sheet is being file .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ring the exemption notification. Since the aggregate clearances exceeded the limit of ₹ 3 crores, the appellant was not entitled for exemption. The adjudicating authority rightly issued the show cause notice and quantified the demand. Above observations of Hon ble High Court are applicable to the present facts. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the clearances of both the units deserve to be added for deciding on the eligibility of SSI exemption Notification. 7.4.5 The Hon ble Supreme C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

edly, the share capital of each of the three companies was ₹ 200/-. Though it was claimed that financial assistance was availed from the financial companies, it is on record that the unsecured loans advanced by MACL to the three companies were substantially heavy amounts as on 1-4-1998. NGCPL received an amount of ₹ 1.55 crores. About 14 lakhs appeared to have been paid after the issue of show cause notice. Loans advanced to NGCPL was about ₹ 52 lakhs while to SCGCPL it was abo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essors on lease basis and the need for introducing MACL as the lessee and then the three companies becoming sub-lessees. ..The so-called Directors of the companies were undisputedly employees of MACL. . When the corporate veil is lifted what comes into focus is only the shadow and not any substance about the existence of the three companies independently. The Circular No. 6/92, dated 29-5-1992 has no relevance because it related to Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 and did not relate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erent manpower, different factory premises, therefore, they are two separate companies, has not been found to be of assistance to the appellants in their stand and these submissions/arguments do not stand the scrutiny of law as discussed above, when the key features of the appellantsunits and the case laws given above overwhelmingly support us to conclude that they are one and the same manufacturer, where clearances have to be clubbed together to decide on the eligibility of claiming SSI benefit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the appellants, when the two appellants viz., PJM and MBC are under the jurisdiction of one Commissionerate of Central Excise, who have granted separate central excise registration to them and from time to time, there has been correspondence between these two appellants and the department. Therefore, based on the facts as well as the ratios laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the following cases: (i) CC, Mumbai vs. MMK Jewellers: 2008 (225) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (ii) CCE, Mangalore vs. Pals Mic .....

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