9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty has been demanded from the appellants for the reason that the goods manufactured in the appellant s factory have been shown to have been cleared in the name of another firm belonging to the same Group viz. M/s. Shankar Construction Company. The Learned Advocate for the appellants pleaded that the two companies namely M/s. Shankar Traders, the appellants herein and M/s. Shankar Construction Co. are two independent legal entities and were engaged in separate manufacturing activities. M/s. Shankar Traders, it was pleaded, were manufacturing Pre-stressed Cement Concrete (P.C.C) poles and M/s. Shankar Construction Co. were manufacturing R.C.C. Poles. He pleaded that Shankar Traders had entered into a lease agreement with M/s. Shankar Const ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own panchayat is concerned no door number as 68DI has been given and this number has been given on their own for the reason that part of the premises was being taken on lease basis from Shankar Construction Co. by Shankar Traders. He has pleaded that inasmuch as Shankar Construction Co. on record had revealed their manufacturing activities to the Department, no mala fide can be attributed to them. He has cited the ruling of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmini Products v. Collector of C. Ex., reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (SC) and he has pleaded that in that case also the manufacturers were under a bona fide impression that they were eligible to the benefit of a particular notification and the Supreme Court, taking note of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not do so before the Supdt. (Prev-I), visit to their premises. Whatsoever M/s. Shankar Traders have to say in this regard, but no reasonable person can believe that any independent company can function and manufacture in this way in the premises of another company being fully dependent on them and carry on their business through their premises and under the management of the working partner of that company. The ld. Advocate is not able to produce any evidence before us that in fact two separate units existed in the same premises. On the contrary it has been admitted that the facilities of Shankar Traders were being utilised by M/s. Shankar Construction Co. and the evidence on record clearly shows that manufacture of R.C.C. Poles by Shank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
