TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nkatanarayana, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Shailender Sethi for P. Parmeswaran, Advocates, for the Appellant. S/Shri S.K.Bagaria, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Poli Kataki, Mohit D. Ram, for Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order]. Respondent in C.A. No.163 of 2003, viz., M/s. Electro Mechanical Engineering Corporation (for short, 'M/s. EMEC') was engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel structure, steel doors, windows and structure etc. and is holder of Central Excise Registration No.18/Alw-1/CH.73/94. 2. On a surprise visit undertaken by the officers of the Central Excise Division, Alwar, it was found that M/s. EMEC had floated two front units, viz., M/s. Cold Steel Corporation and M/s. Super Steel Corporat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent in C.A. No.166 of 2003 is the proprietor of M/s. EMEC and was partner in the other two firms which were undertaking their business independently. 5. The Commissioner, vide order dated 2.2.2001, held that all the units were working as a single unit and imposed a duty of Rs.22,36,534/- after denying the benefit of SSI exemption to the respondents. He also imposed a penalty of like amount under Section 11AC, penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- on firm under Rule 173Q(1) and apart from imposing individual penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- on the proprietor of M/s. EMEC under Rule 209A, ordered recovery of interest under Section 11AB. 6. The Commissioner passed the said order on the ground, inter alia, that all the three units had a common office and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to note here that M/s. EMEC came into existence in the year 1985. However, M/s. Cold Steel Corporation came into existence in November 1990 and M/s. Super Steel Corporation came into existence in July 1996. Respondent in C.A. No.166 of 2003 is the proprietor of M/s. EMEC only and was a director in the remaining two units. 10. The case of the Department is that these firms have been clubbed together as certain employees of the three firms were common or that their premises were adjoining each other. The Tribunal, while setting aside the order of the Commissioner, has held that there is no evidence on record to prove that there was mutuality of business interest or there was flow back of funds from one unit to another. The finding reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
