9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Advocate Shri Gururajan appearing for the appellants contended before us that the findings of the adjudicating officer are not in accordance with law. In this connection he read the orders of the adjudicating officer. He pointed out that merely because one unit was sending certain goods to the other unit for being processed, it will not amount to an evidence to show that these two units are one and the same. He also pointed out that registration of these 3 units are separate. It was also pointed out that the electricity from one unit was taken occasionally. He pointed out that in order to come to the conclusion that these 3 units are one and the same the Department should have produced reliable evidence and the statements of these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in this case and therefore the question of invocation of longer period under Section 11A does not arise. 3. The learned JDR for the Department Shri Arulsamy drew our attention to the impugned order and stated that the units are functioning as if they are one unit and the reasonings of the adjudicating authority on the basis of the statements given by Shri Ramesh and Shri Thiruvengadam as well as the circumstances of the case clearly goes to show that these units are one and the same. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The following two points arise for our determination : (i) Whether these three units can be treated as one unit. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation is applicable. As far as the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocessing. There is absolutely no evidence produced by the appellants to show that any processing charges are charged by M/s. Best Industries from M/s. Best Systems. It therefore goes to show that there is a common operational integrity between these two firms. This is further strengthened by the fact that Thiruvengadam is a common partner and his wife and son are partners in the other units. It is also seen that he has admitted that the electricity from M/s. Best Industries was drawn for the purpose of manufacture of goods in the other two units. No evidence is produced by the appellants to show that the electricity charges are shared by the other two units also. 5. It is now a fact that the burden of proof is on the Department. However t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect of these circumstances are to be taken into consideration while arriving at the finding whether these units are one and the same. 6. The learned Advocate had relied on the decision reported in 1983 E.L.T. 1994. In that particular case there was common partners in the 3 firms. In those circumstances it was held that it cannot be held that these three firms are one and the same. But in this case in addition to the fact that Thiruvengadam is a common partner, the above materials are available. The learned Advocate further relied on the decision reported in 1983 E.L.T. 1215. In that particular case the Tribunal held that merely because two units are owned by the Government of Kerala it cannot be said that both of them are one and the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Thiruvengadam. The appellants did not produce any separate bank accounts to the adjudicating authority. No. such accounts is produced before us. The facts of that case are therefore clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case. 9. At this stage the learned Advocate has stated that the case may atleast be remanded so that certain evidences can be produced by the appellants before the adjudicating authority. We are not able to accept this contention. In order to allow this prayer some basis should have been laid down by the appellants by producing certain record before us to show that there are relevant materials to allow the remand arising from the abovesaid circumstances having a bearing in this case. The remand for making out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 6,000/- (six thousand). The penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on M/s. Best Industries and M/s. Best Systems is reduced to a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) each. At this juncture the learned Advocate made a plea that the duty amount may be allowed to be paid in instalments. He also pointed out that Rs. 75,000/- was paid in terms of the order passed in the stay petition and therefore what is required to be paid is the balance amount. We observe that the appellants can always approach the Collector in this regard and we are sure that the Collector will appreciate the difficulties of the appellants which the appellants should explain to him and the case may be considered sympathetically in the light of the evidences which may be produced bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
