9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are that during the course of the visit to the appellants unit on 5-9-1990, it was noticed that two other units M/s. Ganesh Engg. Works M/s. Prakash Engg. Works were functioning in the same premises. As per the agreement, the excisable goods are manufactured at M/s. Gopi Engg. Works using their labours and machines and are sold in the name of other units. The raw materials purchased in the name of the three units are kept together in the store room of M/s. Gopi Engg. Works and accounts of raw materials are not maintained separately by the three units and apart from the lease amount payable, no other amounts are paid by the other two units for availing the services of M/s. Gopi Engg. Works such as office expenses, telephone charges, etc. In this view of the matter, the deptt. is of the view that the units were floated only for availment of the exemption and to avoid payment of duty. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants requiring them to show cause as to why the duty of excise amounting to Rs. 92,480/- should not be demanded and why penalty should not be imposed. 3. The appellant M/s. Gopi Engg. Works as well as other appellants sent a common reply wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He stressed the opening words for the purpose of these Rules". It is submitted that if the definition was only for the purpose of the Rules, such an Additional Collector would not be treated as a Collector for the purposes of the Act. The Additional Collector who could have the cap of Collector while in the field of Rules, would be bare-headed once he enters the enclosure of the Act - contended Counsel. The argument according to us is fallacious. If for the purpose of the Rules, an Addl. Collector is to be equated as a Collector that equation would endure even for the purpose of the Act; for, as noted earlier, the Rules are framed only to carry out the provisions of the Act. In other words, when the Rules are having a distinct direction and objective, viz., for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act, that facet of the exercise should also be treated as for the purposes of the Act. The Addl. Collector occupying the seat of the Collector by virtue of the help and push of the statutory rule created for carrying out the mission of the Act, is a person equipped with the authority, might and right of the full-fledged Collector seated there in his own right. There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court decisions in this regard and when there is no other decision of any other High Court or the Supreme Court decision on this point, the Tribunal has to follow these decisions. In the premises, we hold that this argument of the learned Consultant that the SCN is not valid cannot be accepted by us. 10. The next point for determination is whether the units Prakash Engg. Works and Ganesh Engg. Works are the dummy units of M/s. Gopi Engg. Works. In this connection, the learned Consultant stated that M/s. Gopi Engg. Works is a partnership firm under Hindu undivided family having four partners and Sri J. Gopikrishnan is the proprietor of M/s. Ganesh Engg. Works and Sh. J. Prakash is the proprietor of M/s. Prakash Engg. Works. In this connection, he drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Addl. C.C.E. v. Shri J.C. Shah reported in ECRC 224 wherein it was held that production by the two firms in which the respondent Sri J.C. Shah was a partner cannot be said to be a production on behalf of the same person. But the facts of that case are not similar to the facts of this case. The facts in this case will be discussed by us to find out whether these two f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Works and the electricity for all these premises is common. It was contended that these by themselves are not sufficient to hold that these are dummy firms of M/s. Gopi Engg. Works. 13. We observe that besides having a common manager, common premises, common telephone and common electricity, there are certain other materials also to justify the conclusion of the adjudicating authority. The manufacturing activity of all the three firms are common. But the proforma invoices are issued in the name of three different units by M/s. Gopi Engg. Works. M/s. Gopi Engg. Works have informed one of the customers that they have two units which are created to avoid the burden of excise duty to the customers. But there will not be any difference in quality or appearance of the machines. It is thus seen that when the invoices are also issued by M/s. Gopi Engg. Works and when there is a common manufacturing activity involved with respect to these concerns, the only conclusion is that these three firms are one and the same. It is further seen that Shri Janarthanam, Managing Director of M/s. Gopi Engg. Works in his statement before the officers had stated that the unit M/s. Ganesh Engg. Works was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
