9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jitendra Yadav and Shri Devendra Kumar Raibali Yadav, directors of M/s Penco and M/s Desmo. 2. The fact of the case is that the Appellant M/s Penco and M/s Desmo are having separate manufacturing units engaged in manufacture of Solvent and thinners. Both units were availing SSI Exemption under Notification No.8/2001 CE dt. 01.03.2001. The department issued show cause notice dt. 03.05.2006 to M/s Penco alleging that M/s Penco was floated by M/s Desmo Exports Ltd. who are also engaged in the manufacture of same products and both the units were availing SSI Exemption under Notification No. 8/2001. That the two companies were controlled by the same management having common shareholder wherein Shri Dilipkumar Jindal holds 97% of the shareholdin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sejpal Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that both the companies are separate legal entities with separate registration of all government departments like Sales tax, Income tax, ROC, having independent manufacturing structures. There is no dispute about separate set up. Both the companies are limited companies and independent manufacturers. That even the units were issued separate show cause notices, separate demands and even the demands were confirmed separately by respective jurisdictional adjudicating authority. The issue of independent show cause notice to each of the unit itself shows that the law recognizes the separate entity of the units. He relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s Gajanan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r wherein the Tribunal held that the Circular No.6/92 is not applicable in case of lifting of corporate veil. 5. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that different show cause notice was issued to the units demanding separate duty from each of the Units. If the revenue is of the view that both the units are not independent and are same, in that case the show cause notice should have been issued only to the actual alleged manufacturer and the duty demand should have been made against it. However the revenue has raised separate show cause notice and separate demand from each of the unit. The demand has also been confirmed separately against both the units. In our view if both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
