9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formerly known as Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Limited, were engaged in the manufacture of hydrogen gas liable to Central Excise duty. The other three appellants were also located in the vicinity of the first appellant and were engaged in the compression and bottling of hydrogen gas produced as a by-product in the manufacture of caustic soda by the first appellant. The Central issue involved in these appeals is that Appellants 2 to 4 are basically front companies floated by Appellant No. 1 in order to avail small scale unit exemption in terms of Notification No. 8/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003. The Revenue initiated proceedings against the appellants to deny the exemption and to demand excise duty. 2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents showing incorporation of the appellants' units as independent legal entities. 3. Ld. AR submitted that the modus operandi adopted by Appellant No. 1 in creating front companies have been well established in the past proceedings which reached up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. Appellant No. 1 had provided unsecured loans or had arranged for such loan from finance companies whose whereabouts are not known to the Directors of these companies. Ld. AR also submitted that the overall control of other three units essentially remained with Appellant No. 1 has been brought out by various evidences like location of the units, involvement of staff of the first appellant, marketing of the final products and substantial difference between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings. Hence, we find it is not totally out of place to draw inference from earlier findings involving same set of facts as well as Appellant No. 1. The various case laws referred to by the appellant are not on the facts now being dealt with. Admittedly, in cases of this nature the main issue will be on the existence or otherwise of certain facts. The substantial and overwhelming control exercised by Appellant No. 1 on other three appellants business activities has been recorded by lower authorities. The appellants did not bring out with supporting documentary evidence to contradict such finding. In the absence of such evidence we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower authorities. Accordingly, the appeals are dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
