9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (3) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Kathiravan Industries are in fact one and that their clearances have to be clubbed for the purpose of Excise duty. Proceedings were drawn against the respondents and in the show cause notice it was alleged as under : As the partners are common and from Hindu undivided family for both the units, Land, Building belongs to one of the partners Shri C.A. Arunachalam, the workers of both the units were working at one place, a common generator and power line was in the name of Shri C.A. Arunachalam a conclusion was drawn that both the units are one and the same; and to evade the payment of excise duty another unit was floated. Hence a show cause notice C. No. V/30/15/81/86 CX. ADJ dated 18-12-1986 was issued to M/s. Kathiravan Industries, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce and impose penalty or pass such other order as may be deemed fit." 3. The matter was earlier heard and the orders were also reserved. At the time of recording the order it was, however, observed from the narration of the facts in the learned lower authority s order and those contained in the application filed by the Revenue that while the prayer is for demand of duty from M/s. Kathiravan Industries and they have been cited as respondents, the goods in fact appeared to have been manufactured in the premises of M/s. Kathiravan Motors and Pumps and they have not been impleaded in the proceedings before us. The matter was, therefore, reopened re-heard to give an opportunity to both sides to make their submissions on this point. 4. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises of M/s. Kathiravan Motors and Pumps and in that view of the matter how it could be said that electric motors were in fact manufactured in the premises of M/s. Kathiravan Industries. He pleaded that M/s. Kathiravan Industries machines were installed at the premises of M/s. Kathiravan Motors and Pumps and the latter was also paying rental charges for the same and it could not be said that M/s. Kathiravan Industries did not own any machinery for the manufacture of the goods in question. 6. We have considered the pleas of both sides. We find the proceedings were drawn asking both the units as to why the clearances of the two should not be clubbed. So far as clubbing of the production of the two units is concerned, this Bench of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s. Kathiravan Motors and Pumps and it is an admitted position that the machinery which is stated to be belonging to M/s. Kathiravan Industries was also at the premises of the former and they were also paying rental charges for the same. There was no need for M/s. Kathiravan Motors and Pumps for paying any rental charges if the goods being manufactured on those machines by and on behalf of M/s. Kathiravan Industries. Inasmuch as a licensed unit has to be considered as a single entity any machinery installed and the goods manufactured therein have to be taken to be belonging to that particular unit. In the facts of this case it has to be held that all the motors had been manufactured at the premises of M/s. Kathiravan Motors and Pumps a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
