9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow-cause notice dated 20-12-1990. The show cause notice had also proposed reclassification of spares of rigs, on which issue, the learned Commissioner has held that at this stage it would not be possible for him to decide the issue on merits and that the matter was not relevant because both rival headings carry the same rate of duty, accordingly, the duty of Rs. 7,20,379/- was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on Sri Nataraja Industries. 2. Heard Sri M. Rajendran, learned Advocate for the appellants and Sri M. Kunhi Kannan, learned D.R. 3. The learned Advocate submits that the two units are owned by husband and wife independently, that both have their own sales tax registrations, that both units are located in separate geogra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered the question of members of same family being engaged in running the units proposed to be clubbed and it was held that the value of clearances not clubbable being the members of the same family or that they have used of common office premises and telephone, particularly, when the units held separate registrations and no financial flow back of funds were proved. (d) He also submits that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Precision Gears Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 535 (Tri.) = 1998 (76) ECR 131, wherein it was held that clearances of two separate units cannot be clubbed together, if there is no financial flow back and if other unit is set up as a dummy to evade duty and particularly when the two units ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Original has gone beyond the scope of show-cause notice in view of the fact that the show-cause notice did not propose any allegations regarding the financial flow back or use of common facilities. Therefore the order impugned has violated the principles of natural justice 8. We also find that the learned Commissioner has not given a ruling on the correct classification of the spares merely on the ground that the evidence before him was not enough and that the two headings contain and carry the same rate of duty. We find that either of these grounds are not legally correct. If there was not enough evidence, then it automatically followed that the alleged classification proposed by the show-cause notice should have been discarded. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
