9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is whether for the purpose of granting or rejecting concession under Notification No. 80/80-C.E., dated, 19-6-1980, the clearances made by the dissolved partnership firm, M/s. Gaurav Equipments, Coimbatore (Appellants in Appeal No. 1720/83) and M/s. Gaurav Equipments (Private) Ltd., appellants in appeal No. 1721/83-B should be clubbed together. 3. M/s. Gaurav Equipments, the partnership firm consisted of three partners viz. Mr. M.K. Gupta, Mr. S.R. Gupta and Mr. Anil Gupta. They were manufacturing Electrical Mixies at 155, 5th Street, K.K. Pudur, Saibaba Mission Post, Coimbatore. Their product fell under the category of domestic electrical appliances under T.I. No. 33-C of the Central Excise Tariff. The product was eligible for exemptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 82 were served on the partnership firm M/s. Gaurav Equipments, Coimbatore. On the allegations that they were not eligible to avail of the benefit of exemption under the notification and were asked to show cause why they should not be called upon to pay duty and penalty for contravention of various provisions of the Act. Similar show cause notices dated 22-6-1982 and 24-9-1982 were also served on M/s. Gaurav Equipments (P) Ltd. 5. After following the usual procedure, the Collector of Central Excise, Madras by his order dated 19-4-1983, imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- each on the partnership firm and Private Ltd. Company for contravention of various provisions of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 and the Central Excise Rules, 1944, ordere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the partnership firm surrendered the lease to the landlady and the private limited company negotiated with the landlady for lease of the premises/factory. Documents in support of these contentions have been filed. On these grounds, it was urged that the partnership was not in existence, ceased to exist and had no connection whatsoever with the private limited company and vice versa with reference to manufacture of mixies. It was therefore, urged that the excise authorities were in error in clubbing the clearances of the dissolved firm and the private limited company for determining whether the appellants could avail of the concession under the aforesaid notification. The learned Advocate for the appellants in his arguments relied on the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rances of the specified goods from such factory by or on behalf of one or more manufacturers, for home consumption, during the financial years, exceeds rupees fifteen lakhs." 10. There is no dispute that the manufacturing activity was carried on at the same factory or premises. Merely because the ownership of the factory changed hands from the partnership firm to a private limited company, it cannot be said that clearances were not from the same factory. The words used in clause (ii) of para-5 of the notification extracted above are clear enough on the point that the aggregate value of clearances is to be determined taking into consideration the clearances by or on behalf of one or more manufacturers. The clearances made both by the Regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
