Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE Versus N.M.S. BABU AUTHORISED SIGNATORY M/s. P.J. MARGO PVT. LTD. & ORS.

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' [2010 (12) TMI 26 - Supreme Court of India]. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 companies is also sent back for a re-determination .....

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 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 from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001, (3) Notice d .....

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 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 all excisable goods do not exceed three cr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 the Show Cause Notice. We are of the view 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

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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