Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (4) TMI 269

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ior Departmental Representative did likewise on behalf of the respondent Collector. This common order disposes of all three appeals. 2. The appellants in Appeals E/710/87-A and E/711/87-A M/s. Vir Industries and M/s. Esvee Industries are manufacturers of suspension bushes which fall under Tariff Item 68 during the material period, 1982-83 and 1983-84. They had removed their goods without payment of duty. They had not filed the required declaration under Notification 111/78-C.E., dated 9-5-1978 for exemption from licensing control. It was alleged that the said two concerns which are partnership firms were supplying their entire production to another partnership firm, M/s. Vir Technique who are the third appellants in the present proceeding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... roduce the goods in terms of the bond and in the event of their failure to produce the goods, he ordered appropriation of an amount of Rs. 3485/- towards duty and fine. Aggrieved with the order, all the three firms have filed these appeals. 3. Arguing the case of the appellants, Shri M.Chandrasekharan, learned counsel stated that the impugned order has been passed, mainly on the ground that the three units had common partners. Actually, he pointed out only two persons, Shri Ambardekar and H.M. Bakshi were partners in all the three concerns. The other partners were different in the three concerns. The other grounds leading to the impugned decision are that the units operated from the same premises and the workers were common. It was pleade .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e set aside and the appeals allowed. 4. The arguments were resisted by Shri T.R. Malik, Senior Departmental Representative. He supported the Collector s order pointing out that because of the common partners being there in the three partnership firms, they were mutually related and the sale price of Vir Technique has been correctly taken into account. The appellants had not filed the necessary declaration under Notification 111/78 claiming exemption from licensing control. He pleaded that the appeals be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We have perused the record. We find that the Collector had identified the partners of the three firms as follows vide paragraph 4 of his order :- I. Esvee Industries 1. Shri P.S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune vide Order No. 275 - 279/97-A, dated 18-2-97 in Appeal Nos. E/771/88-A and 781 to 784/88-A reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 149 (Tribunal) = 1997 (70) ECR 12 (Tribunal) this issue was considered in detail taking note of several earlier decisions on the subject. It was observed by the Bench that the fact that on paper the factors are under different ownership or management is not decisive and the reality behind the facade or appearance must be looked into. The Bench then considered the following decisions :- 1. Shree Packaging Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad [1987 (32) E.L.T. 94 (Tribunal)]. 2. Bhagwan Das Kanodia Others v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1987 (32) E.L.T. 204 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Industries to Miku Industries. The plea taken in defence by Vir Technique is that they were purchasing goods from various other suppliers also besides Vir Industries and Esvee Industries. There is no finding by the Collector that there was any financial relationship between the firms and of sharing of profits of one unit by the others. There is also the absence of factors like those present in the two cases referred to above where clubbing was held to be justified. These cases were of Double Bee Enterprises [1995 (78) E.L.T. 261 (Tribunal)] and Supreme Engineering Works. In these cases there were certain significant common factors besides common control of production and sales and special financial relationship. Thus, in the Double Bee Ent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates