9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Cx.Adj., dated 29-9-1994 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy. (ii) Show cause notice C.No.V/Ch.28.39.10/15/61/94, dated 29-9-1994 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai. (iii) Show cause notice C.No.V/l5/246/95, dated 4-10-1994 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai. (iv) Show cause notice C.No.V/2815/78/94.Adj., dated 29-9-1994 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur. (v) Show cause notice C.No.V/28/15/8/94-Cx.Adj., dated 28-9-1994 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin. The above show cause notices had been issued to 13 Private Limited Companies, 8 proprietary concerns, one Shri M.S. Jain and certain other persons. All the show cause notices t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms (CBEC) as per order dated 2-5-2000 pursuant to which these appeals were filed by the Commissioner. 2. Heard both sides. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has raised certain preliminary objections. He submits that the date on which the impugned order was passed is not clear from the copy received by his clients. If the impugned order was passed prior to 2-5-1999, its review by the Board on 2-5-2000 was beyond the period of one year prescribed under Section 35E of the Central Excise, Ld. SDR dispelled this apprehension of the ld. Counsel on the strength of the original records she is possessed of. We have also scrutinised the records produced by SDR and have found that the Order-in-Original, now under challenge, was passed by the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g decisions of the Tribunal : (ii) CCE, Rajkot v. Sompura Ceramics [2001 (130) E.L.L. 195 (Tri. - Del.)]. (iii) CCE, Bombay v. Supreme Electrical Appliances [2001 (131) E.LT. 271 (Tri. -Del.)]. 4. Ld. SDR submits that the non-filing of appeal against Shri M.S. Jain cannot affect the present appeals against the 21 units inasmuch as the clubbing of clearances proposed in the show cause notices was in relation to the goods cleared by those units only. As appeals have been filed against all the 21 units, the same would suffice vis-a-vis the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The DR has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Ruby Rubber Industries) Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata [2002 (149) E.L.T. 970 (Tri. - Kolkata)]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as we have already noted, no appeal has been filed by the department against Shri M.S. Jain despite the fact that what was dropped by the Commissioner was, mainly, a proposal for clubbing of clearances of the 21 units which was squarely based on investigative findings pertaining to the role of the said person. When the Board reviewed the Commissioner s order, it took a definite stand that, according to the evidence in the case, Shri M.S. Jain was the real manufacturer of the goods and had manufactured the goods through the 21 units over which he was held to have absolute control . The review order underlined the nexus between Shri M.S. Jain and the 21 units . The Board went to the extent of saying that the 21 units were only dummies of Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
