9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)]. - The two appeals were heard together as they arise out of the same order. 2. Show cause notices were issued to these two appellants M/s. Bhavana Apparells and M/s. Indu Apparells in respect of duty payable by them on the readymade garments manufactured and removed by them during the period 1-4-1975 to 15-3-1976. The allega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent of setting aside the penalty imposed. The revision petition preferred to the Central Government against the said order is now before us, on transfer, as this deemed appeal. 3. We have heard Shri VJ. Manerikar, Advocate for the two appellants and Shri L.C. Chakraborty for the department. 4. The quantum of manufacture and removals by each of the appellants is not disputed. It appears that up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rried out in its respective portion and thus there were two distinct factories each engaged in its own manufacture. As earlier mentioned, the Collector had granted benefit of exemption (out of the Rs. 5 lakh limit) prorata to each of the appellants. Therefore, in effect, the Collector did recognise and accept that the two appellant firms were separate and distinct. He held that, even so, benefit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nct factories. Reliance in this connection is placed on the agreement of lease under which a portion of the premises of M/s. Indu Apparells was leased out to M/s. Bhavana Apparells. It appears that M/s. Indu Apparells were a licensed factory with an approved premises. The said approved premises was of the entire factory. It is part thereof that had been leased to M/s. Bhavana Apparells. When M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and even after the lease the alteration of the licensed premises was not approved and the further fact that the same machinery had been used by both, we are satisfied that the factory was one throughout the year, though the manufacturing activity may have been carried on by the two appellants during separate periods (as had been accepted by the lower authorities also). 7. In the circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
