2005 (2) TMI 637

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Appellant. Shri Vikash Kumar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. The adjudicating authority has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 4,22,013/- together with interest under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules against M/s. Kumaran Implements by holding that they were the real man .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rances has been fragmented so as to wrongfully claim the benefit of SSI exemption. 3. We have heard both sides. 4. It is clearly brought out that the two units have regular exchange of money, men and material. There was regular exchange of raw material between the units, there was a common store for raw materials, there was a regular inflow of funds from one unit to another, orders were collec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s two distinct entities in order to enjoy duty concession. The stand of the appellants that although funds flowed from one unit to another, the financial outstanding was settled at the end of the year, is not substantiated with reference to any documentary evidence and cannot, therefore, be accepted. In the light of the above features, the Additional Commissioner has rightly held that Kumaran Impl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X