9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal held that the dummy nature of M/s. Zenith Engineering and M/s. Pradnya Engineering cannot be upheld. This is how the Tribunal dealt with this aspect; "(d) PEP is a Private Limited Company with two Directors, having its own machinery and existence. Its Independence is not being questioned. (e) M/s. Zenith is a sole proprietary concern of Mrs. M. Bolinjkar, who happens to be the wife of one of the Directors of PEP. It was started in 1995, was purchased by the Proprietor and shifted to its now address at Gali No. 2, Single Estate, Kandivli (E) which is adjacent to unit no. 2 of PEP, that by itself cannot be construed to make it a dummy of the Private Limited Company i.e. PEP. They have filed necessary declaratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in and of PEP. There is nothing suspect or amiss about challans of Zenith or and Pradanya being found in the drawers, of Mr Jani at PEP premises along with Invoices, as final job work material received it PEP from Zenith and Pradanya could have been cleared on invoices of Zenith and Pradanya kept from PEP. This submission of the ld. Advocate for benefit of the notification has force and would exonerate PEP from the owes duty demand made of being the manufacturer of goods, under job work as they are exempted under notification such 83/94 and 84/94 being job work of Zenith and Pradanya as claimed. In any case, this line of Investigation was not being logically pursued and enquired. This exhibits a serious lacuna in the investigati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and order recovery of duty on the same, as proposed is this case and demanded from PEP.' 4. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that since no duly liability is being upheld, the penalty imposed under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q cannot be upheld. 5. In its order, the Tribunal dealt with the four appeals being Appeal Nos. E/2013 of 2004, E/2071 of 2004, E/2072 of 2004 and E/2073 of 2004. Appeal No. 2013 of 2004 was at the instance of the Central Excise and Appeal No. 2071 of 2004, 2072 of 2004 and 2073 of 2004 were at the instance of the three assessees viz. M/s. Penetrical Engineers Pvt Ltd., M/s. Zenith Engineering and M/s. Pradnya Engineering. All the four appeals arose out of the Order-in-Original dated 24-4-2002 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o sought to urge that the appeal gives rise to the question of law as to whether the unit can be treated as manufacturing unit/job worker without having any manufacturing activity and/or any machineries and/or any labourers and whether M/s. Pradnya Engineering and M/s. Zenith Engineering were floated to avail SSI exemption separately and evade Central Excise Duty. In our considered view, the question is not question of law but questions of fact. The Tribunal upon consideration of the entire material, recorded as a matter of fact that M/s. Penetrical Engineers Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Zenith Engineering and M/s. Pradnya Engineering were separate independent entity and that the dummy nature of M/s. Pradnya Engineering and M/s. Zenith Engineering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
