2005 (8) TMI 511

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i R.N. Vishwanath, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This appeal arises from OIA Nos. 30 & 31/2003-C.E., dated 18-3-2003 confirming the original order raising demands on the appellants on the ground that they are the ultimate manufacturers of the goods which were cleared from another unit viz. M/s. Hara Communications Pvt. Ltd. (HCPL in short). The appellants' co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion of colluding of clearances of both the units on the ground that M/s. HCPL is a dummy unit of the appellant. The entire facts of the case clearly show that M/s. HCPL were the independent, privately incorporated company under the Companies Act. They are manufacturing the goods with their own funds. In order to fix the liability on the appellant, the department should have investigated the matter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... M/s. HCPL being a dummy unit or not and that they are not the manufacturers and without Show Cause Notice to them, without demands being raised on the appellant, the proceedings are totally not sustainable in law. The Joint Commissioner, in OIO, has clearly admitted the fact that the invoices had been raised in the name of M/s. HCPL and further holds that it does not entitle them the ownership of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X