9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D monogram) classifiable under chapter sub-heading 8512.00 and water divider (with PARRY monogram) classifiable under chapter sub-heading 3922.90 manufactured from another unit M/s. Polymoulds Industries, Madras on job work basis and that to with brand name of some other dummy unit who were not eligible for any SSI concession, without taking out a Central Excise Licence and without observing other Central Excise formalities, thereby contravened the provisions of Section 6 of Central Excise Salt Act, 1944 read and hence demands were confirmed by the Addl. Commissioner rejecting the plea raised by appellants that they were only supplier of raw materials to other units namely Polymould Industries and the relationship was a contractual one be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other unit who received the raw material from the appellants was paid labour charges, they will not be considered as dummy unit as held by the Addl. Commissioner. It is his contention that dummy unit will be a unit only on paper not existing as held in the case of Alpha Toyo Ltd. as in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 689 (T). On the same ground, the department proceeded to club the unit on hired labour on the basis of labour charges by independent unit. However, the Tribunal set aside the order as in the case of Mico Industries Co. Ltd as in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 163. This judgment refers to all previous citations on same footing and hold that two independent units cannot be clubbed unless there is flow back between them which is not the facts of the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame unit. For the purpose of clubbing a unit, it has to be shown that there is financial flow back and the present appellant is controlling the entire function all the activities of M/s. Polymould Industries. Hence, clearances cannot be clubbed in the facts alleged in the show cause notice. Therefore, the ratio of Alpha Toyo Ltd. (supra) and that of Mico Industries Ltd. referred to above would apply to the facts of this case. It is also seen that both the units were in existence and working independently and in the facts and circumstances, it cannot be held that Polymould Industries is a dummy unit and the appellant being supplier of raw materials should be taxed to excise duty in the present case. 7. In that view of the matter and in v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
