2012 (10) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Iron Foundry (Unit-I) at 12/1, 'O' Road, Belgachia, Howrah and M/s. Globe Iron Foundry (Unit-II) at 69(P), 'O' Road, Belgachia, Howrah. On scrutiny of records, it was found that the Appellants were availing exemption under Notification No. 9/2002, dated 1-3-2002 for the period, 2002-03 and Notification No. 9/2003 dated 1-3-2003 for the period, 2003-04 for Unit-I and were availing exemption under Notification No. 8/2002, dated 1-3-2002 for the period, 2002-03 and Notification No. 8/2003 for the period, 2003-04 for Unit-II, which are falling under R-VIII of Howrah North Division-II. As per the condition of para 2(i) of the Notification Nos. 9/2002 and 9/2003, such option shall be effective from the date of exercise of the option and shall no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Units are to be treated as separate units as they are also located in separate divisions with separate Registration Numbers. In the circumstances, their clearances cannot be clubbed together. He, further, submits that the show cause notices were issued to them by invoking the extended period of limitation. Therefore, the demands are not sustainable as the Appellants are filing their regular declarations along with Central Excise returns. Therefore, on both the counts, the demands are not sustainable. To support his contention, he relies upon the decisions in the case of Unity Industries v. C.C.E., Vadodara-II reported in 2006 (193) E.L.T. 314 (Tribunal-Mumbai) and C.C.E., Vadodara-II v. Sotex reported in 2007 (209) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.). 3.&ems .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it is an admitted fact that both the Units are under the same proprietorship. Therefore, as per the Condition No. 2(iv) of the Notification No. 8/2002, the clearances of both the Units are to be clubbed. Accordingly on merits, the Appellants have no case. The case law relied upon by Appellant in the case of Unity Industries (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case, as in that case, the Units are owned by two separate persons, whereas in the present case, the allegation is that both the Units are controlled by one person. Therefore, the facts of Unity Industries are not relevant to the issue in hand. 6. With regard to the issue of limitation, from the facts and records it is clear that the Appellants had nowhere brought in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X