9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in manufacture of MS bars from 03.07.2008 and have availed value based exemption envisaged under Notification No. 8/2003 dated 01.03.2003 as amended. ii) M/s. Navneet Industries have functioned as a manufacturer of MS Rounds in the same premises by to 31.07.2008 and also availing value based exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 dated 01.0.2003 as amended. iii) Hence, aggregate value of clearances of Navneet Industries is to be added to the aggregate value of clearances of the appellant. iv) The total aggregate value of both these entities works out to Rs. 2,15,83,048/- which is Rs. 65,83,048/- in excess of the exemption limit of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. Hence, the differential duty is liable to be paid by the appellant. In adjudication, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008-09. b) Ld. Advocate drew our attention to Sl. No. 8 of the lease agreement, which clearly indicates that the lease was for a period of two years commencing from 01.05.2008. c) He also referred to the letter dated 27.01.2010 of the appellants in response to the SCN dated 09.09.2009, wherein it had been pointed out at the time of inspection of their premises by the department there was no stock of finished goods. d) Although the proceedings were initiated proposing clubbing of the clearance value of Navneet Industries with that of the appellant, no separate SCN has been issued to Navneet Industries. e) As has been laid down in a number of decisions, non issue of SCN to the other unit for clubbing of value of their clearances with tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e month of July 2008, both Navneet Industries and appellant are alleged to have made clearances from the same premises. We however find that first paragraph of the SCN itself indicates that the appellants were engaged in manufacturing activity only from 30.07.2008. It appears that the basis for arriving at this proposition is that Navneet Industries had also filed ER-1 returns for the period April 2008 to July 2008 and that they had surrendered their registration certificate only w.e.f. 11.08.2008. All the same, there is no proof brought forth in the SCN that Navneet Industries were actually and still functioning from the very same premises which had been taken over by the appellant, namely, at No. 142-A, Sadayankuppam, Village Road, Manali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to be made of two units which are allegedly manufacturing and clearing goods from the same premises, therefore SCN is not required to be given to the other unit is a facile one. When the value of clearances of another unit, whether it is in the same premises or far removed is sought to be added for the purpose of arriving at aggregate clearances ie., the ratio of the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Advocate will apply in all fours. We then find that the allegations made by the department does not have any, legal legs. This being so, the impugned order confirming the allegations made in the SCN cannot be sustained and is required to be set aside, which we hereby do. 6. Accordingly, appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if any, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
