9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . M/s. Jindal Steel Products also. The other partners of the said partnership firm are closed relations of Shri Mahesh Kr. Jindal. Under these circumstances, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata, held that "the value of clearance made by the two firms being under the actual control of Shri Mahesh Kr. Jindal, proprietor of M/s. Jindal Steel Fabricators should be clubbed together, were not at all entitled to, for the purposes of benefit under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-86 during the financial years in consideration." Ld. Consultant submits that in the present case, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II, has passed the order mechanically without proper application of mind and in complete ignorance of the Hon'ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ietor of M/s. Jindal Steel Fabricator is also partner of the partnership firm namely, M/s. Jindal Steel Products and the other partners are his closed relations. The entire control of the partnership firm was of Mr. Jindal. He also submits that both the firms were manufacturing identical excisable goods and enjoying S.S.I. exemption benefit under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-86 separately clearly show that the two units were made with the sole purpose of enjoying the duty exemption. He relies on the decisions rendered in the cases of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Densons Pultroteknik reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 628 (Tribunal) and Supreme Engineering Works v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1992 (62) E.L.T. 469. The same view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat & Others v. Shri J.C. Shah, M/s. Jayantilal Babubhai & Others reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. J317 (S.C). The decisions submitted by the ld. JDR are not applicable in the present circumstances. In the case of Supreme Engineering Works v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, the Tribunal held that the Collector's conclusion, based on ample evidence regarding common control of production and sales among the units, having special financial relations shown to be not on a principal to principal basis. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Densons Pultroteknik, the Tribunal held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
