9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he findings and the same upheld by the Tribunal that all seven units except Gajanan Weaving Mills were only a corporate facade although registered with various authorities with a view to camouflage their actual identity and thereby avail of the exemption which otherwise would be inadmissible and yet confirming the duty demand upon all seven units and their partners or Directors is not correct and the demand ought to have been confirmed only against Gajanan Weaving Mills who were the assessee and liable in the present case also. We find that the show cause notice has not at all been issued to Herren who according to the Adjudicating Authority own the Appellant unit also. We also want to make it clear that the fact that two units are related ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterials from M/s. Herren who did not follow any procedure, converted them into finished products and cleared them. A duty escapement of Rs. 34,85,396/- was alleged. The department initiated proceedings against the appellant. The adjudicating authority on the basis of the following facts decided that M/s. Kiran is a dummy unit of M/s. Herren. (1) A register was seized from M/s. Kiran depicting production and clearance of bulk drugs clandestinely removed by the appellants during the period from 20th September, 1996 to 17th February, 1997. (2) M/s. Herren had advanced Rs. 80 lakhs to M/s. Kiran as interest free loan and also paid Rs. 16,71,032/- towards electricity bills and Rs. 15,020/- to the Registrar of Companies. (3) The letters un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emanded from M/s. Herren. However, in this case, while holding that M/s. Kiran is a dummy unit, the adjudicating authority has demanded duty from the appellants, a dummy as per the findings of the adjudicating authority. The learned Advocate relied on the following case laws : (1) Gajanan Fabrics Distributors v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune [1997 (92) E.L.T. 451 (S.C.)]. (2) Perfect Fasteners & Others v. CCE, Chandigarh-II [2004 (62) RLT 961 CESTAT Delhi] The learned SDR supported the findings in the adjudication Order. 4. On a very careful consideration of the matter, we find that the Revenue while holding that M/s. Kiran is a dummy of M/s. Herren has not at all issued any show cause notice to M/s. Herren. This is fatal to the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
