TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The issue involved in these appeals arise out of the same impugned order, they are heard together and are disposed by this common order. 2. Brief facts are that the appellant is a Proprietrix firm engaged in manufacture / fabrication of spares/ parts for heavy equipments and were availing the benefit of SSI exemption. M/s. Quality Engineering, another partnership firm was also engaged in manufacture of similar products. On the basis of intelligence that the appellant namely M/s. Thiraviam Engineering Works (herein after referred to as TEW) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a partnership firm with Smt. T. Violet and Shri T. John Vasikaran as partners. Both these units are separate entities. Though the department proposed to club the clearances of these two entities, no show cause notice has been issued to the alleged dummy unit. Though the appellant put forward the said plea, the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 6 of the impugned order observed that there is no necessity for issuance of a separate show cause notice to the alleged dummy unit when it is established that all the clearances were made by TEW. He argued that once clearance of the two units are proposed to be clubbed together, then separate show cause notice has to be issued to the dummy unit putting them to notice why they should not be considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench vide Final Order No.40215-40217/2018 dt. 25.01.2018 in the case of Sri Vari Packs Others Vs. CCE Salem in Appeals E/188/2009 etc., following earlier Tribunal's decision in the case of Poly Resins (supra) and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's decision in CCE Kolkata Vs. Diamond Scaffolding Co. - 2011 (274) ELT 10 (Cal.), held that proceedings without notice to one of the parties in holding adverse view against such party is not sustainable. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below: 5. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. Regarding the appeals by the assessee-appellant, we note that as correctly contested by the ld. consultant that, there is a serious legal infirmity in the proceedings co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order will then have to be set aside in respect of the proceedings against all these appellants before us, which we hereby do. For these reasons, we do not find it necessary to go further into the merits and the factual aspects of the appeals. The appeals therefore succeed on the technical objections raised by the ld. Advocate. All appeals allowed as above. 7. Following the said decision, we are of the view that the demand cannot sustain as the department has not issued show cause notice to the alleged dummy unit proposing to club the clearances of the same with the appellant herein. In fact, we find that even the copy of the Order-in-Original has not been served upon the alleged dummy unit. The impugned order is set aside and the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
