9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. These two appeals are directed against the order of the Collector holding that M/s. Concord Steel Works Ltd. and M/s. Karnataka Gears have interest in each other and therefore, for the purpose of allowing small scale exemption available under various exemption Notifications issued by the Govt. of India, from time to time, only one exemption is all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the decision of the CEGAT in Prima Controls (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Pune reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 62 in support of his contention that there is no warrant for holding that production of two limited companies are to be clubbed because they are related persons. He also drew attention to the decision of the CEGAT in the case of Binod Kumar Maheswari v. C.C.E., Calcutta-I reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the demand made of over Rs. 10 lakhs. He also submits that they should have been given exemption in respect of goods falling under T.I. 68 under Notification No. 46/81. 3. Ld. DR submits that the Collector s order holding the unit to be interested in the business of each other and therefore, ineligible for separate exemption as small scale units is fully borne out by the evidence under law. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r one year, if the clearance in the preceding year exceeded the limit. As the units were eligible to be treated as separate units for the purpose of small scale exemption and as their clearances were within the exemption limit during the relevant periods, the exemption was rightly availed of by them. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed with consequential relief to the appellants and the adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
