TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , while appellants no. 2, M/s. Bentex Electricals (hereinafter referred to as 'BE') are engaged in the manufacture of MCB, metal sheet enclosure, KWH energy meters, distribution board etc. The company, appellants no. 1, was formerly known as M/s. National Electric Industries. This company was set up in the year 1984 and is a private limited company in which Shri R.L. Chopra, is M.D., while his wife Smt. Veena Chopra and daughter Smt. Rashi Khanna, are the Directors. Whereas the appellant no. 2, BE, is a Proprietorship concern of Shri R.L. Chopra, who started the same in the year 1987. Both the appellants were availing benefit of small-scale exemption notification. However, w.e.f. 1-4-1995 the appellants no. 2 started paying full rate of dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o prove the financial flow back from one company to another and that clearances of both these companies could not be legally clubbed as duty has been demanded from both of them by treating them as independent units and that appellants no. 1 is a Private Limited company, while appellants no. 2 is only a proprietorship concern. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner is invalid and deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR, has simply reiterated the correctness of the impugned order of the Commissioner. 5. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Commissioner has clubbed the clearances of both the companies named above, broadly on the grounds; that both were working in the same building, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having crossed the limit of Rs. 2 crores and for this reason also, there could not be clubbing of the clearances of this company with that of company, appellants no. 1. Moreover, the appellants no. 1 is a Private Limited company, whereas appellants no. 2 is only a Proprietorship concern. Both have got distinct legal identities. The mere fact that in the company, appellants no. 1, the major shares were held by Shri R.L. Chopra and his family members, while company, appellants no. 2, was the sole concern of Shri R.L. Chopra could not be taken to be enough to infer legally that one of these two companies, was a dummy one. Even the Commissioner in the impugned Order has not recorded any specific findings regarding the dummy character of any of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of another. 9. Similarly, in the case of Applied Research Engg. (P) Ltd, v. CCE, Pune, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 494 (Tribunal), it has been observed that clubbing of a limited company with a partnership firm, although having some common factors, is not permissible. The use of same premises/shed, common management, common office, some common labour, common goods, had been also held to be insufficient for clubbing the clearances of two units, by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Renu Tandon v. U.O.I., 1993 (66) E.L.T. 375 (Raj). 10. From the record, we find that both the companies stand duly registered with the State and Central Excise Authorities as well as Sales Tax Department independently. They have got their separate registration n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
