Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (4) TMI 286

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ities of two companies having common directors are being carried out together in one and the same premises, a visit was made to the premises of M/s. Starlite Corporation and on inspection, it was observed that M/s. Starlite Corporation is operating/conducting manufacturing activities in Gala No. 37, Evergreen Industrial Estate, Shakti Mill Lane, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai and in the same gala one more company viz. M/s. Avdel Tools Services is carrying out manufacturing activities too. While M/s. Starlite Corporation is engaged in manufacture of Aluminium Blind Rivets, Steel Nails, Aluminium Rivets Shells etc. M/s. Avdel Tools Sorvices is engaged in the manufacture of Avex Hand Tools, Hydro Pnuematic Blind Reveting Tools and spares etc. Declarati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... its having same manufacturing premises and being run by the same person having common electricity meter for which the payment was made by one unit M/s. Starlite Corporation only and being run by one person having common workers were in fact one and the same and that M/s. Starlite Corporation was a parent company and M/s. Avdel Tools Services was a dummy and sham fake unit floated with an intention to evade payment of Central Excise duty. A show cause notice was accordingly issued to M/s. Starlite Corporation and M/s. Avdel Tools Services seeking to club clearances of the two units and demanding duty to the extent of Rs. 19,65,421/- for the period 1995-96 to 1997-98 (till 2-12-1997) from both the units and proposing penalty under Rule 17 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... principal charge in the show cause notice in Para 11 is that M/s. Starlite Corporation is the parent company and M/s. Avdel Tools and Services is a dummy or sham unit floated with an intention to evade payment of Central Excise duty. The demand of duty was for the period 1993 to 1997. It was explained that from the year-wise clearance details in the said chart accepted by the department for the period from 1993 onwards and even prior thereto Starlite i.e. the parent was not even carrying on any activity of manufacture at all. However, M/s. Avdel Tools and Services which was floated in 1903 as a distinct firm was already manufacturing and clearing its product i.e. hand tools classifiable under Chapter 84 from 1993 onwards. It was therefore, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r. G.G. Bulchandani controls all the activities of two firms. 11. The learned S.D.R. however submitted that the adjudicating authority in his finding portion of the order-in-original has clearly held that M/s. Starlite Corporation was the one who was required to get registered under Section 6 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and to file a declaration under Rule 173B, determine duty on the goods and remove them on payment of duty and follow appropriate procedure under Rule 173G and remove goods under appropriate invoice under Rule 52A maintain daily stock under Rule 226 and were liable to penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q etc. In this entire para M/s. Starlite Corporation has been .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the four partners is also vague as the order says penalty of Rs. 50,000/- is imposed on all four partners without specifying whether Rs. 50,000/- is imposed on each of the partner or collectively together on all the partners. The order portion simply demands a penalty and imposed penalty without specifying any name or even using the word them . It is a totally bland and unspecific order. Commissioner (Appeals) also has declined to interfere with the order-in-original and rejected the appeals without considering the plea of the appellants that the party from whom the duty has been demanded and penalty has been imposed has not been named in the order-in-original. 13. In view of this following the Apex Court decision in the case of Gajana .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates