9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rule was imposed. 1.2 The appellants are engaged in the business of manufacturing of Radiators, Radiators cars, radiator pressure cap and composite coolers at the material time classified under erstwhile Tariff Item No. 68. They had obtained the required licences from Ministry of Industry and the Central Excise authority and were in business. 1.3 The case of the appellants is that their General Manager Shri Nareshbhai Patel runs another unit by name and style of Super Care (Gujarat) at Vadodara on its own premises sole proprietary firm and machinery and capital as a and (sic) was not under control or related to the appellants in any other fashion. The appellant had entered into an agreement with Supercare dated 23-10-1982 whereby th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the commercial Manager. (v) The statement of Shri N. Patel, General Manager and perusal of the agreement entered with Supercore it appeared that Supercore was a unit created by the appellant company with a mala fide interest to evade payment of duty and they were having overall control over the working of Supercore. (vi) The Radiator core therefore manufactured in the premises of the appellants and shown as of Supercore were excisable goods which were required to be accounted for by the appellant. (vii) The goods were proposed to be revalued and duty of excise was thereafter worked out and demanded under proviso of Section 11A(i). (viii) Penalties and liabilities of confiscation raised. 1.5 Collector confirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cut to size on M/s. Supercore (Gujarat), 348, G.I.D.C. Maker Pura, Baroda-10 (Super per short). (ii) At the unit, the material so received i.e. fins tubes and other Radiator parts were manufactured which were excisable goods under Tariff Item 68. These goods were removed on internal memos to Supercore (Gujarat) and goods covered by one such memo no. 4147 were detained. It was also found that raw material to manufacture the same was received under challan no. 68 to 91 all dated 22-2-85. (iii) Enquiries made revealed, the premises of Supercore (Gujarat) do not come under the definition of factory under factory Act and they had no licence under Central Excise Act or and procedure and permission of Rule 56B movement were not ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore the order on demands of duties cannot be upheld as levy of duty is not established. (e) Since relationship amongst the persons running the appellant company and Supercore (Gujarat) could not be established as under the concept of related person under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the facts of the case and no material is on record to show and establish that the later enterprise to be financed or set up by the appellants, mere selling marketing arrangements entered into cannot make the appellants as manufacturers of the said goods. (f) We find force in the arguments, that parts of Radiators cannot be demanded duty under TI 68 being eligible to full exemption under Notification No. 118/75; more so if both fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
