TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... results of investigations, it appeared to the department that, for the purpose of claiming SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., the appellant had shown a part of their clearances in the name of dummy units namely M/s. SVTS and M/s. SNI Agencies during the periods 1986-87 and 1987-88. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding duty of Rs. 47,14,601/- on rig units for the said periods on the basis of clubbing of clearances of the three units. The notice also proposed to impose penalty on the appellant under Rule 173Q and certain other provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The demand of duty was resisted by the appellant by submitting that the goods independently manufactured and cleared by other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommon facilities recorded in the impugned order were beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The clearances of the appellant and SVTS were not to be clubbed merely on the ground that the latter unit was run by the wife of the proprietor of the appellant-unit. Ld. DR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner and referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in CCE v. I.T.E.C. (P) Ltd. [2002 (145) E.L.T. 280 (S.C.)], wherein two manufacturing units run by members of one and the same family were held to be "related persons" on account of mutuality of interest between them. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions. We note that, upon clubbing the clearances of the appellant with those of SVTS for the financial years 1986-87 and 1987-88 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner, the following findings of facts were recorded :- "(i) that the two units are located in separate premises and that they have separate sales tax registration and the proprietors thereof paying income-tax separately. (ii) that there is no evidence led to show that either of them is a dummy unit on paper only; (iii) show cause notice does not allege with evidence led regarding the financial flow-back between the two; and (iv) there is also no evidence to show that the unit owned by the wife had given power of attorney to the owner of other unit, as her husband." The above findings have not been challenged by the Revenue. On the basis of the materials available on record, we would add to the above findings that n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
