Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1988 (1) TMI 172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ority had disposed of two appeals. Now that Shri Pochkhanawala Advocate for the respondent has come all the way from Bombay it is not considered prudent to adjourn hearing of the appeal on this count. Shri Chakraborty may file supplementary appeal along formal application for condonation of delay today itself. Shri Pochkhanawala says that he would not oppose the application for condonation of delay in the said supplementary appeal. Parties also agree that the supplementary appeal as and when filed may be disposed of on the strength of arguments advanced during hearing of this appeal and on the same lines as the present appeal. Argument heard. Appeal dismissed. Reasoned order will follows . 2. The second supplementary appeal has since be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e aforementioned four concerns including that of the respondent company were marketed under the common brand name Shingar . In view of the commonalty of brand name of various products manufactured by the aforesaid four concerns, it was alleged as to why the clearances of all the four units should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the aggregate value and reject the exemption claimed by the respondent company under Notification No. 89/79, dt. 1.3.79 and 71/78. These allegations were upheld by the Assistant Collector in his order, dated 4.10.80 denying exemption to the products above claimed by the respondent herein under two separate Notifications 71/78 and 89/79. Other grounds of rejection apart from upholding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cause notices; nor is the respondent company is a dummy company of the other three units. It is a distinct legal entity carrying on business on its own account and is not controlled by any other unit. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), therefore, held that the respondent company was eligible to the Notificiations No. 89/79 and 71/78 respectively. The Collector of Central Excise of Bombay-I has now filed the two appeals on the ground that the Collector (Appeals) has based his order merely on a few Court judgments and those of the Tribunal without apreciating the facts stated in the order of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise which have been set out earlier as other grounds on which the Asstt. Collector rejected the exemptions cla .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ition, the learned advocate has relied upon Tribunal s decision in the case of Shree Packaging Corporation, Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad [1987 (32) E.L.T. 94 (Trib)]. Same decision was also relied upon by the learned advocate for another ground i.e. employment of work force of one firm in another. The Tribunal has held that the aforesaid factors by themselves cannot lead to the conclusion that such units are connected unless there is evidence to the effect that there is a common funding or financial flow back from one unit to another. Learned advocate has also relied upon Tribunal s decision in the case of Bhagwan Das Kanodia c Others, Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1987 (32) E.L.T. 204J on the proposi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce whatsoever that the respondent company had any connection with any of the other three units mentioned in the show cause notice or that it was a dummy unit for any of the other three units whose clearances are sought to be clubbed with the clearances of the respondent company. The other two decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondents are quite irrelevant to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is the admitted case of both sides that the trade name Shingar was unregistered and accordingly, no one unit in particular was the owner of this trade name during the relevant period. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no substance in the two appeals of the appellant-Collector and are, therefore, rejected. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates