TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notice to such units. No notice has been served to the 4 units who were held to be dummies and whose turnover is added to arrive at the excise duty liability of the main appellant - The present adjudication is without the participation of the alleged dummy units, for a fair and proper decision. In our view, such non-issue of notice/non-participation of the other units whose turnover was added to turnover of main appellant, resulting in the present demand, puts the whole proceedings in legal jeopardy. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeals No. 1414-1417 of 2009 - Final Order No. 51959-51962/2017 - Dated:- 17-2-2017 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) and Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant resulting in the present impugned order are in total violation of principles of natural justice. It is his submission that the turnover and clearance of 4 other units M/s Unichem Engineering (P) Ltd., M/s Anant Packaging, M/s Akriti Packaging and M/s Universal Offsets, were sought to be added to the turnover of the main appellant to arrive at the eligibility of SSI exemption. The 4 other units as mentioned were all having legal status, independent of the main appellant, as private limited company or partnership firm or proprietorship firm. In fact it is submitted that 2 of these units, namely, Unichem Engineering (P) Ltd. and Universal offsets were existing even before the start of main appellant s unit. 3. It is the submission of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding regarding the un-tenability of duty demand by clubbing clearance of other units without issue of show cause notice to such units. The similar ratio has been followed in various other decisions by the Tribunal. Reference can be made to Poly Resins vs. CCE, Chennai I reported in 2003 (161) E.L.T. 1136 (Tri. Chennai), the Tribunal, after resolution of difference in the Division Bench, held on similar lines. In Jay Ajit Charia vs. CCE ST, Surat I reported in 2015 (40) S.T.R. 1139 (Tri. Ahmd.) , a similar legal issue with reference to service tax matter was examined by the Tribunal and it was held that the Adjudicating Authority should not predetermine the issue without issuing show cause notice to the concerned parties. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
