TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , hence, the clearance of both units be clubbed. The facts of the present case are more or less similar to the facts of the case in M/S LIBRA ENGINEERING WORKS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-AHMEDABAD-I [ 2016 (7) TMI 1116 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] , hence by the judgment of this Tribunal delivered in the said case where it was held that for all practical purposes, the management/control of the business of manufacture and sale has been handled by Mr. Asgarali A. Siddiqui, proprietor of the Appellant and clearances were clubbed. Maintainability of appeal - the respondents raised another issue that the Revenue has not filed four appeals but instead filed only one appeal, therefore, the same is not maintainable - HELD THAT:- The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issues partly in favour of the respondents, modifying the Order of the adjudicating authority, therefore, the Revenue has filed only one appeal challenging the Order-in-Appeal only to the extent it was not accepted by the Revenue, that is on the issue of clubbing of clearance. Consequently the Appeal is sustainable. Demand upheld - decided in favor of Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. 415 of 2010 - A/86566/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst M/s Kumar Polyextrusion, set aside the penalty against Mrs. Latika Kumar Mali and reduced the penalty to ₹ 25,000/- against Shri Kumar Shankar Mali. Hence, the Revenue is in appeal with the prayer that the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) be set aside as far as clubbing issue is concerned. 3. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterated their grounds of appeal. He has further submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has ignored the statements recorded during the course of investigation, the evidence on record indicating that even though on paper M/s Mali Pipe Industries and M/s Kumar Polyextrusion are shown to be separate legal entities but in fact in the former Unit , Shri Kumar Shankar Mali was the proprietor and in M/s Kumar Polyextrusion, his wife Mrs. Latika Kumar Mali was the proprietress for name sake. All the activities of both units have been controlled and managed by Shri Kumar Shankar Mali. 4. Further, he has submitted that during the course of search of all the units and common office premises, it was noticed that the screens of different brands were lying in the factory of M/s Kumar Polyextrusion, 150 Nos. of 63mm and 315 Nos. of 90 m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n on the paper was not known to her; she had also stated that whenever required her husband was taking her signatures on papers and she did not know anything and that her husband never gave her full information, he used to ask her to sign and she used to sign. She also admitted that she was only a housewife and just lent her name as proprietress. Further, the learned AR has submitted that the aabak Jabak i.e. incoming and outgoing records were maintained in the common office for both the units and the amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- though advanced by M/s Mali Pipe Industries to M/s Kumar Polyextrusion, which the later had claimed to have been returned subsequently, but no evidence has been produced in this regard. 6. It is his contention that the goods are manufactured at both the units under common brands and common private records maintained for purchase, issue for production of raw material and sale of finished products for both units, common register for inward/outward movement of manufactured goods and raw materials are maintained at M/s Mali Pipe Industries. In support, the learned AR has referred to the extract of incoming and outgoing register mentioned at para 34 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xemption notification. Further, he has also submitted that merely because both Units were operating from common office, common inward and outward register of materials and finished goods, common staff etc. cannot be a ground to club clearance of both units. In support, they have referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. Sharad Industreis 2013 (294) ELT 561, Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara Vs. Tightwell Fasteners 2008 (230) ELT 163, Shri Natraja Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem 2005 (187) ELT 45, Renu Tandon Vs UOI 1993 (66) ELT 375 (Raj.). 9. In his rejoinder, the Ld. A.R. for the revenue has submitted that there is no necessary to file separate appeals for each respondent against order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Department has complied with the provisions of section 6 A of the CESTAT (procedure)Rules, 1982. 10. Heard both sides and perused the records. 11. The short question involved in the present appeal is whether M/s Mali Pipe Industries and M/s Kumar Polyextrusion are entitled for SSI exemption benefit under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven though on paper both the units were shown and claimed to have separate existence and functions separately carrying out its business of manufacture and sale of goods independent to each other. On the contrary, the entire operation and business of both the units undoubtedly controlled and managed by one person that is Shri Kumar Shankar Mali, hence, the clearance of both units be clubbed. The facts of the present case are more or less similar to the facts of the case in Libra Engineering Works (supra) and Himgiri Plastics (supra) case, hence by the judgment of this Tribunal delivered in the said case. In these circumstances, we do not find merit in the impugned order setting aside the demand arrived at by clubbing the clearance value of M/s Kumar Polyextrusion with that of M/s Mali Pipe Industries while considering the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003 as amended from time to time. 15. The learned Advocate for the respondents raised another issue that the Revenue has not filed four appeals but instead filed only one appeal, therefore, the same is not maintainable. Revenue s answer to the said argument is that the department has comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
