9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;Clubbing of clearances of M/s. Ya Alif Lam Industries and M/s. Union Steel Industries. (ii) the seizure and confiscation of the goods found unrecorded in RG 1 register. (iii) confirmation of demand on the goods found short. (iv) imposition of penalty and (v) confiscation of building, land etc. 3. The facts of the present case leading to the present appeals are that the show-cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the clearances of the two units should not be clubbed together for determining their eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. as amended and why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,77,054.51 should not be demanded from them. They were also asked as to why the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ld. Counsel for the appellants cited and relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jagjivandas & Co. v. C.C.E., Bombay-II reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 441 (Tribunal) = 1985 ECR 17 (Tribunal). He also cited and relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Pimpri Gases v. C.C.E. reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 474 (Tribunal). By referring to these decisions, the Counsel submitted that the Tribunal in these two cases set out the parameters for determining whether the clubbing of clearances of the two units is warranted or not. Counsel submitted that these decisions clearly showed that the factors in the present case did not warrant the clubbing of the clearances of the two units. Reading extensively from the adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the question of clubbing of clearances value of the two units did not arise. The Counsel also submitted that since the goods were not fully manufactured, the question of their recording in RG 1 register was not necessary and therefore, the confiscation was not warranted. The Counsel also submits that since there cannot be any clubbing of clearances of the two units nor confiscation of semi-finished goods being ordered, therefore, the imposition of penalty is also not justified. 7. Countering the arguments of the ld. Counsel, the ld. SDR submits that the appellants belonged to the same group and that the ld. Adjudicating Authority has held that there was sharing of profit and that quite often, the work of one unit was being done by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. On careful consideration of the submissions made before us and the case-law cited, we note that so far as the sharing of profit was concerned, no evidence has been placed on record to show that profit of unit 'A' was being shared by the partners of other unit 'B'. In the absence of any evidence, the findings of the ld. Adjudicating Authority is not sustainable. 11. Insofar as the advancing of loans were concerned, it was brought to our notice that under the personal law of the appellants, no interest was chargeable. This position has not been controverted. Insofar as the payment of job work charges was concerned, it was argued before us that it was on rare occasion that job work of one unit was being attended to by the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
