TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional Commissioner or Additional Commissioner is supervisory authority for the Joint Commissioner. Therefore, at the same post one occupant of the office could be an Additional Commissioner and his successor could be a Joint Commissioner or vice versa - In this case, if the Additional Commissioner has issued the show cause notice and his successor Joint Commissioner decided the matter, we find no infirmity at all in such a decision. As far as the contention that the Unit at Puddukkottai was a joint venture between the appellant and M/s Godavari Prestressed Pipes Structures Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, there is nothing in the records to show that a different legal entity has been created or that a PAN has been taken in the name of a different legal entity. In both the units (at Hyderabad and Puddukkottai), the registration was done in the name of Taaher Ali Industries Projects Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the appellant. Evidently, one legal entity should have been only one PAN. Since the Central Excise Registration is PAN based, once an application is made along with correct PAN, only one Central Excise Registration can be issue - On a perusal of the joint venture agreement entered into by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 30.06.2008, the appeals were dismissed. e) Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition No. 15559 of 2008 before the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the Hon ble High Court held that ends of justice would be met if the appeals are revived and accordingly disposed of the petition directing the Petitioner to deposit half of the disputed tax and one fourth of the penalty within eight weeks from the date of that order and on such deposit, the respondents were directed to dispose of the appeals in accordance with the law. f) After the order of the Hon ble High court, the appellant made the pre-deposit as directed and thereafter the Commissioner (Appeals) had, by Order-in-Appeal No. 80 81/2008(H-III)CE, dated 26.11.2008, after examining the matter at length, found no merit and substance in the appeal and rejected the same and upheld the order of the original authority. g) Thereafter, the appellant filed the present appeal along with stay application No. E/Stay/69/2009. This stay application was disposed of by the Stay Order No. 866/2009, dt. 01.05.2009 staying further recovery of the duty and penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stored with the direction that it will be heard, it was listed for hearing in the next Division Bench. The appellant did not appear and the matter was listed on 18.11.2009 and today also they did not appear. Without prejudice on the above observations regarding the conduct of the appellant, we proceed to decide the matter on merits. 5. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant M/s Taher Ali Industries Projects Pvt. Ltd. had taken over a proprietary firm viz; Taher Ali Engineers Manufacturers, Aghapally village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The appellant also had another unit at Puddukkttai in Tamilnadu. Central Excise registration is now linked to the PAN issued by the Income Tax authorities. The appellant had given their own PAN to obtain Central Excise Registration in Hyderabad. They have obtained another Central Excise registration number in Pudukkottai by giving the wrong PAN viz; the PAN of the Managing Director of the company. Thus, by giving two different PANs, although the company is only one, they were able to obtain two different Central Excise registration numbers. 6. The appellants have availed exemption under notification No. 9/2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s concerned, in the hierarchy of the Department of Customs Central Excise, below the Commissioner are the Additional/Joint Commissioner, both are at the same level and the officer after completing some years of service as Joint Commissioner, is granted a non-functional selection grade and is called Additional Commissioner instead of Joint Commissioner. It is not the case that the Joint Commissioner is subordinate to the Additional Commissioner or Additional Commissioner is supervisory authority for the Joint Commissioner. Therefore, at the same post one occupant of the office could be an Additional Commissioner and his successor could be a Joint Commissioner or vice versa. The show cause notices were issued by the Officer in the particular position and so were the Orders-in-Original. In this case, if the Additional Commissioner has issued the show cause notice and his successor Joint Commissioner decided the matter, we find no infirmity at all in such a decision. 8. As far as the contention that the Unit at Puddukkottai was a joint venture between the appellant and M/s Godavari Prestressed Pipes Structures Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, there is nothing in the records to show that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PL and the Central excise Registration is also in the name of TIPL. From the nature of the joint venture agreement, it is evident that Godavari Prestressed Pipes Structures (P) Ltd., Hyderabad is only a dummy entity and all the shots are called by TIPL. The contention of the department is that TIPL have deliberately suppressed the existence of the unit at Thanjavur and this contention is fortified by the act of the Appellants in furnishing the PAN number allotted to Shri Taher Ali, Managing Director of TIPL at the time of seeking PAN based Central Excise Registration. At the time of personal hearing, the Appellants have submitted various documents such as copies of ledger accounts of M/s Sona Industries. M/s Thread Form Machinery Industries etc, letter from M/s Subash Pipes Ltd., list of plant and machinery installed at Tanjore factory in support of their contention that the appellants are a separate legal entity. However, the said documents in no way help the Appellant s cause. As seen from the joint venture agreement and the nature of the operations undertaken by the Appellants, it is clear that the units at Hyderabad and Thanjavur are one and the same notwithstanding the joint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
