TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed:- 13-8-2008 - Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) S/Shri Ravi Shankar and N. Anand , Advocates, for the Appellant. Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - All these appeals have been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 129/2002-C.E. dated 8-3-2002, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Sudha Koka, learned SDR for the Revenue. 3. We heard both the sides. 4. The proceedings were initiated against the appellants on the ground that they had suppressed the production of the goods and also the clearances of both the unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how they had combined the clearances of both the units. The learned Advocate pointed out each of the unit has got a separate registration, a separate manufacturing facility and a separate sale tax registration, etc. and the Department has not given any ground as to why the clearances have to be clubbed. Further in the Order-in-Original as well as in the Order-in-Appeal, they confirmed the demand on two separate units simultaneously without identifying as to who is the dummy unit and who is the main manufacturer. The learned Advocate relied on several case laws which are as follows:- S/No. Case Laws Ratio or gist of the decision. 1. Gajanan Fabrics Distributors [1997 (92) E.L.T. 451 (S.C.)] Whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gal entity from its partners for the purposes of Central Excise Act irrespective of the treatment of the firm and partners under the General law. 6. Additional Collector v. Kathiresan Pillai [1989 (42) E.L.T 189] A partnership firm is a distinct person from the persons constituting it. 7. Jagjivandas Co. v. CCE [1985 (19) E.L.T. 441 (T) affirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the Civil Appeal of the Revenue as reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. A24 (S.C.)] Mere use of common premises, telephone, commonness of partners, etc. does not mean that the goods have been manufactured by or on behalf of one and another. Further mutual financial transactions without interest between manufacturers is no concl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icenses issued by the Gram Panchayat of Chickmagalur to both the units; (v) Separate financial assistance sanctioned by the Government of Karnataka to both the units; (vi) Separate power connection accorded by the KEB and electricity authorities; (vii) Separate building plans sanctioned by the authorities; (viii) Separate bank accounts held and operated by both the concerns; (ix) Separate books of accounts. 6. The learned DR reiterated the contentions in the impugned order. 7. On a very careful consideration of the entire issue, we find that there is a fundamental flaw in the show cause notice as well as in the Impugned order when there is a clubbing of clearances and a proposal to deny, SSI exemption on the ground that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
