9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g for the Revenue and Shri Alok Bhartwal, learned advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. As per facts on record, M/s. Suzy Nova Dental Pvt. Limited (herein after referred as "Private Limited") and M/s. S. Nova Dental Corporation (herein after referred as "Corporation") are engaged in the manufacture of dental chair, Dental Units and its accessories. The factory premises of Pvt. Limited were put to search by the officers on 11-2-2000 and under a Panchnama various records were seized. The officers found that an another unit under the name and style of M/s. S. Nova Dental Corporation was working from the adjacent premises. The two premises i.e. one belonging to Pvt. Limited and the other belonging to Corporation were partitioned by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... included in the assessable value of the dental chair/unit. Shri Paresh Raval also informed that Corporation procured an order from Government Dental College Hospital, Asarwa, Ahmedabad and have supplied the chairs manufactured by them. He clarified that the chairs are supplied along with spittoon, tumbler, halogen light and tray, the value of which is included but the remaining attachments were supplied from their godown. 4. Statement of Shri Bharatkumar H. Soni, Technical Consultant of Corporation was recorded on 11-2-2000, wherein he agreed with the Panchnama contents and photographs taken by the officers as regards factory premises. 5. Statement of Shri Sandeep Patel, former Director of Pvt. Limited and now the partner of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide his impugned order set aside the same. Hence the present appeals by the Revenue. 8. On going through the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), we find that as regards the clubbing of value of clearances of both the units is concerned, he has observed that one unit is a Private Limited whereas the other is a Partnership firm. Merely because the two units have proximity, common passage, common storage of raw materials or inter relationship of partners of the units, cannot be a sole ground for clubbing of clearances. He further observed that there is no evidence of any financial flow back of funds between the two units. The interest free loan of Rs. 14.62 Lakhs given by Pvt. Limited to Corporation stands paid back to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of Renu Tandon v. UOI - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 375 (Rajasthan) in support of his findings that in the absence of evidence of common funding and financial flow back, two units cannot be treated as one and their clearances are not to be clubbed. As already observed, we note from the grounds of appeal that there is no serious effort on the part of the Revenue to rebut each and every finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the above ground. It merely stands repeated that in the case of clandestine removal, one has to see the preponderance of the probabilities and the same is not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, they have submitted that when the offences are in secrecy i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o of appeal, we find no reasons to take a view different from the one taken by Commissioner (Appeals). Even as per the statement of Shri Sandeep G. Patel recorded on 16-2-2000, it stands clearly deposed that dental chair/units were manufactured at M/s. S. Nova Dental Corporation. The said statement does not stand disputed or rebutted by the Revenue by production of any evidence to the contrary. It is also well settled that statement of any person is required to be relied upon or rejected in its totality. Revenue cannot adopt a part of the statement in its favour and cannot reject the other part of the statement which is in favour of the assessee. Shri Sandeep Patel having clearly deposed that the goods were being manufactured in the Corpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chair, benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 66/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 is not proper. The dispute is in respect of other goods which are supplied directly from the godown and which are optional, as stand proved on record by production of invoices etc. The Tribunal in the case of Suz-dent (India) Pvt. Limited v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 364 (Tri.-Mumbai) has held that imported/bought out articles supplied with own manufactured dental chairs is not required to be included in the assessable value of the final product. For better appreciation, Para 3 and 4 of the said decision is reproduced :- "3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned DR. The Revenue has no case that these hand-pieces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
