9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merge out of the same Order-in-Original, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of desert coolers and cooler cabinets. On the basis of the facts as contained in the show cause notice dated 12-10-1983, it was alleged that both of them constituted one unit, and that their separate existence was only on paper with a view to unauthorisedly avail exemption of Central Excise duty. The Additional Collector of Central Excise who adjudicated the matter under his Order-in-Original dated 31-1-1985 demanded Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 68,286.75, imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,000/- and redemption fine of Rs. 2,500/-. 3. The matter was posted for hearing on 22-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emical Industries v. C.C.E., Indore; (6) Final Order Nos. 166-168/93-C, dated 18-5-1993 in the case of M/s. Supreme Engineering Works, M/s. Superflex Engineering Polymers Ltd. and M/s. Super Platin Engineering Corporation v. C.C.E., Pune. 5. We have carefully considered the matter. M/s. Double Bee Enterprises and M/s. Filco Industries, both were located at W-24, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. Both the units had one roof and one common gate, with no separate demarcation of the premises. There was common machinery, painting facility, electric meter etc. Their workers were also common. They had single integrated manufacturing facilities. Their purchases of raw materials were at a single point. On investigation, the purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise, New Delhi, who adjudicated the matter, the appellants had not produced any evidence, documentary or otherwise to meet the allegations or to support their contentions. The Adjudicating Authority had come to a finding that two units have been created on paper alone with the deliberate intention of evading Central Excise duty. 6. In the appeal memo, the appellants have made general denials in similar terms in both the appeals, and have not referred to any evidence to challenge the findings of facts of the adjudicating authority. They had submitted that separate registration had been obtained in the name of two units with the Sales Tax Department. They have also made other general denials. The facts and circumstances of the case estab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madras - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 54 (Tri.), the Tribunal with regard to applicability of exemption Notification No. 71/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978, and No. 80/80, dated 19-6-1980 had held that the creation of Balamurli was nothing but a subterfuge and the firm itself is sham. It is a shadow which has no substance and intended only to create a facade behind which the State was to be deprived of its legitimate tax. In the case of Unique Resin Industries v. C.C.E. - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 230 (Tri.), the four units were having common infrastructural facilities, sales not work and pricing; they were financed and run by the same family; the products of all units were having common code numbers. The Tribunal held that the units were not independent and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
