9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to as FFPL) which the Commissioner held the said manufacturer to be a hired labour and clubbed the clearances of both and denied the benefit of SSI exemption on the ground that the premises and machinery being common and the same had been leased out by the appellants to M/s. FFPL. The demands have been confirmed for the period from 1-4-92 to 4-10-93 in terms of Rule 9(2) of CE Rules read with proviso to sub-section (1) of 11A of C.E. Act. An amount of Rs. 2,64,962/- paid by the appellants through TR-6 challan dated 14-10-93 and 12-1-94 towards the confirmed amounts have been adjusted. Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has also been imposed under Rule 173Q of C.E. Rules. 2. It is the contention of the appellants that both the units are to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 9(1) to allege clandestine removal and also invoking proviso to Section 11A alleging suppression does not arise in the matter. It is stated that the Commissioner has in the impugned order accepted the plea of separate manufacture carried out by M/s. FFPL. However, he has clubbed the clearances solely on the ground that M/s. FFPL was only a hired labour and manufactured the goods in terms of the contracts supplied by the appellants and the appellants had supervised the manufacture by their engineers. It is also contended that when the fact of manufacture by M/s. FFPL had been admitted by the Commissioner on record, and more particularly the contract indicates that the contract was on the basis of principle to principle, therefore M/s. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is deemed to have been done by the appellants and the Commissioner has treated them as the manufacturer of the goods. He submits that larger period is invokable as the terms of the lease deed has not been brought to the notice of the Department and hence there is suppression of facts. He submits that merely because RT-12 returns have been accepted and approved, it does not mean that the Department was aware of this arrangement and that M/s. FFPL was only a hired labour, therefore the impugned order is required to be upheld. 5. On a careful consideration of the submission and on a perusal of the entire records, the fact that both the appellants and M/s. FFPL having taken out separate Registration certificates on the same premises is es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to principle basis and not that of hired labour. The appellants' plea that M/s. FFPL in these circumstances ought to have been put to notice by the Commissioner is justified and they not having been put to notice has made the order unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, we notice that there is no suppression of any fact in the matter as both the units had obtained separate Registration certificates by showing bifurcation in the drawings as noticed by us in the records. The RT-12 returns also indicate the same address. The fact that both the units manufacturing from same premises was made known by utilising the same machinery to the Department. Hence it cannot be said that there is suppression in the matter call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
