TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 209/2016 - Dated:- 23-11-2016 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri C. Hari Shankar, Senior Advocate and S. Sunil, Advocate for the appellants Shri G.R. Singh, Authorized Representative (DR) for the respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran These 5 appeals are against common impugned order dated 31/10/2008 of Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi II. A demand for Central Excise duty of ₹ 17,13,064/- was confirmed by the Original Authority against the main appellant (M/s Pandey Furniture Pvt. Ltd.). Various penalties were also imposed on different appellants by the Original Authority. On appeal, vide the impugned order, the Original Authority order was upheld. 2. We have heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Raj Kishore is actually a set up with no real status ; (c) most of the goods manufactured were sold in combination to common buyers ; (d) raw materials are procured from common suppliers ; (e) excise invoice and the other invoices were prepared by the same person in both the units and (f) the statements earlier admitted that the employees of main appellant managed the accounts of M/s Seating Systems. 3. As can be seen among the above points, point (b) dealt with various details considered as supporting evidence for clubbing the turnover. However, reasons cited do not have much force to make M/s Seating Systems as a dummy unit for excise purpose. 4. We examined the relationship and mixed management of these units including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. We find though in the present case certain relationship could be established between the main appellant and M/s Seating Systems which is also not rebutted by the appellant, to make one of the unit as dummy units without legal status and consider all its turnover on account of main appellant is not legally sustainable. The evidences procured and relied upon were scratchy and sporadic. These evidences in no way lead to a conclusion that M/s Seating Systems has no legal existence for the purpose of Central Excise. In this regard, a reference can be made to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in CCE vs. Electro Mechanical Engg. Corpn. reported in 2008 (209) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.), decision of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in Renu Tandon vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
