TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mouflage the other. In such circumstances demands can only be confirmed against the principal unit - matter is remanded to the Commissioner to decide afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/2339 to 2341 & E/3246/06 - A/86044-86047/17/EB - Dated:- 23-2-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri.M.P. Baxi, Advocate for appellant Shri.VK Agarwal, Addl. Comm. (AR), for respondent ORDER Per Raju 1. These appeals have been filed by M/s.Plasto Flex Industries, Shri Jayant C Parikh and Nilesh B Parikh against confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I. Appeal has also been filed by the Revenue against the said order. The Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the premises of M/s.Plasto Flex Industries. The affairs of Miko Enterprises were handled by Shri D.J Parikh. In many cases, for the goods purchased by M/s.Plasto Flex Industries, the payment was made by either Miko Enterprises or by Urvish Plastics depending on availability of funds. In other two companies also the situation was similar. It was alleged that the same was happening because all three firms were family concerned and looked after by same members. The Modvat Credit of all purchases was taken by Plasto Flex Industries irrespective of the fact that whether payment has been made by Plasto Flex Industries or other companies. Some part of the inputs purchased on account of Plasto Flex Industries were diverted to Miko Enterprises wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the show-cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai-I and the matter was agitated by the appellant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 15/03/2005 remanded the matter back to the Commissioner to decide in the light of the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Modi Alkalies 2004 (171) ELT 155 (SC). The Tribunal also directed that clubbing case is to be decided without adding the turnover of Urvish Plastics being a trading concern. The matter was again adjudicated along with some other show-cause notices issued latter. Aggrieved by the said order, revenue, Plosto Flex Industries, Jayant Parikh and Nilesh Parikh are in appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Learned Counsel for Shri Ni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its order dated 15/03/2005, the matter was remanded to Commissioner specifically holding that Urvish Plastics turnover not to be included in the total turnover as it was only a trading unit. Tribunal simultaneously directed the Commissioner to re-determine the clubbing in the light of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Modi Alkalies (supra). In the meanwhile nine show-cause notices were issued only to Miko Enterprises covering the period April 1996 to December 1999 and eight show-cause notices were issued to only to Urvish Plastics. Three show-cause notices were issued to Plasto Flex Industries for the period April 1998 to March 2000. Five show-cause notices were issued to Urvish Plastics and Plasto Flex Industries were d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bing, if the units have separate premises, are separately registered under different statutes, manufacture their own products and there is no pervasive control by one entity over the other or financial flowback between the units. To support his submission he relied on the following case laws: a) Superior Products 2008 (230) ELT 3 (SC) b) Renu Tandon - 1993 (66) ELT 375 (Raj) c) Jagjivandas Co. - 1985 (19) ELT 441 (T) d) Bhagwan Das Kanodia - 1987 (32) ELT 204 (T) e) Techno Device 0 2009 (243) ELT 79 (T) f) Kinjal Electricals - 1989 (43) ELT 327 (T) He asserted that as the only ground for reaching the conclusion that there is a pervasive financial and management control, the impugned order relies on the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all three firms were made together and the same was divided amongst all concerned. He further pointed out that from the statements of suppliers of raw materials it was cleared that the supplies made to any of the firms the payments were received from any of the firm. He further argued that the Commissioner has observed in para 25 of the impugned order that all the show-cause notices issued during the subject period are to be dropped but there are no findings recording the parties and demands in respective of which the same were dropped. Revenue has also raised the same issue as the other appellants that the Commissioner has failed to identify the person against whom the demand has been confirmed. Learned AR also relied on the decision of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
