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

2015 (9) TMI 1493 - SUPREME COURT

2015 (9) TMI 1493 - SUPREME COURT - TMI - SSI exemption - clubbing of clearances of subsidiary unit - Held that: - this Court, in 'Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. [2004 (8) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that this very circular would have no relevance to notifications other than the Notification mentioned therein. This judgment was followed in 'Parle Bisleri Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad' [2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r otherwise of facts except the fact that M/s. Margo Bio Controls (P) Ltd. happens to be a 100 per cent subsidiary of the holding company viz., M/s. P.J. Margo (P) Ltd. - This case should be remanded to the CESTAT to decide afresh as to whether any case for clubbing of excisable goods manufactured by the holding company and the subsidiary company is or is not made out on facts. Equally, the issue as to whether or not there has been suppression of material facts by both the aforesaid companie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, Mr. Suman Jyoti Khaitan, Adv. O R D E R The present appeal arises out of five appeals that were filed in Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') against the Order-in-Original dated 12.10.2004 passed by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise. These appeals, in turn, arise out of six Show Cause Notices being (1) Notice dated 12.03.2001 covering the period from 01.04.1997 to 31.03.2000, (2) Notice dated 26.06.2001 covering the period f .....

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 Revenue, has confined himself to two of these issues. According to him, the CESTAT has not dealt with whether a subsidiary company, viz., Respondent No. 3 in the present appeal, is only a dummy, consequent to which the excisable goods manufactured by it needs to be clubbed with its holding company, viz., Respondent No. 1. If this is done, it is an admitted position that the terms of Notification No. 7/97 dated 01.03.1997, which exempts Small Scale Units if the aggregate value of clearances 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

ut on facts. On the other hand, Shri S. K. Bagaria, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, argued before us that the nine factors stated by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise in his order dated 12.10.2004, all of which showed that Respondent No. 3 was, in fact, a dummy of Respondent No. 1, were only trotted out from the Show Cause Notice itself without any discussion of the detailed reply sent by Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 answering all these grounds to 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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