2004 (8) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... out Rs. 5 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. Part of duty demand of Rs. 55,767/- is not being contested. With regard to rest of the duty demand, the submission is that this duty demand is contrary to settled law. It is pointed out that the appellant-manufacturer is a partnership and the goods in question were being sold to a private limited company viz. M/s. Dynamic Lab. Pvt. Ltd. The duty demand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e reported in 2004 (168) E.L.T. 316 (T). Ld. SDR submitted that in the case of Jaybee Industries the Tribunal has held that even a limited company can be clubbed with other units for the purpose of determining annual production. 2. We have perused the records and considered the submissions made by both sides. In the present case the purchaser of the goods is a limited company. There is no evidenc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ltd. and the Apex Court's decision in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. Consequentially, we hold that the duty demand which has been confirmed by treating the manufacturer and the buyer as related persons is not sustainable. It is set aside. The duty amount of Rs. 55,767/- which has not been contested is confirmed. Since most of the duty demand is on account of treating the parties as rel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X