9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mkar Stampings (iii) Balaji Stampings and (iv) Sudarshan Stampings are not independent units and M/s. Sudharasan Stampings, M/s. Namkar Stampings and M/s. Sree Balaji Stampings have been created for the purpose of wrongly availing the benefit of SSI Notification and therefore clearances of all these four units should be clubbed together for the purpose of assessment and quantification of duty. Shri Ramakrishanan submitted that in the impugned order, the learned adjudicating authority has not given any detailed finding at all by discussing the evidence as to how and on what basis legally and factually the said 3 units can be held to be appendage of the other unit i.e. PSNK Stampings. The learned Consultant submitted that the mahazar would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating authority should have entered a detailed findings with reference as to which unit lent the money, on what dates and how much and what was the terms. In the absence of detailed finding in this regard, the appellants would be disabled from putting forth effectively their defence. It was further submitted that the adjudicating authority has not referred to in para 17 of the impugned order the fact of repayment of loan for some years without interest. It was argued that the finding of the adjudicating authority in para 16 of the impugned order that all the four units manufacture electrical stampings and the equipment used by all the four units are same is not correct in view of their specific plea that each unit has separate machiner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a finding given, the matter may be remanded for reconsideration of the issue for giving a detailed finding on the relevant issues. The learned DR further submitted that so far as consumption of electricity is concerned, it is not disputed that three appellants had a common connection while one appellant had a separate connection. The learned DR fairly conceded about the seizure of stampings from three separate units in regard to which there is no finding in the impugned order. In regard to the use of common electric meter, the learned Consultant in reply relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kinjal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 327 (T). 4. We have considered the submissions made before us. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity, as rightly contended by the learned Consultant has not given a detailed finding about the quantum of money lent, the date of payment, the repayment factor etc. We do not find any finding or discussion on repayment made by some units as contended by the learned Consultant with interest and without interest for some years. We note that the ledgers of the units were also produced before the adjudicating authority to show that there was lending and repayment of money by the units for various years i.e. 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89. This aspect has not been referred to in the impugned order. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, since we feel that various pleas and the documentary evidence produced bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
