9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceipt of Raw Materials - It was the claim of the Revenue that all the units had a common head office, there was neither allegation nor finding that other units were nonexistent or were located in the same premises - Therefore the claim that all the raw materials were received in the premises of KI does not emerge from the facts. Costing Job Work Charges - There was no relationship between the two - If KI was supposed to be treated as the manufacturer and clubbing was to be done - department had to show that other units did not had the facility and were controlled by the two partners of KI i.e. Shri Chimanbhai Nanjibhai Hapani and Ms. Sonalben B. Hapani - Neither of the two partners were shown to be involved in determination of job work charges or in control of supply of raw materials. Accounting Methods - Quality of Goods Manufactured - Each unit had been identified as separate, separate registration certificates had been issued by the department -Just because accounting policy was determined and methods followed were same by all the units, clubbing cannot take place - ll units was controlled by Shri Manoj Kacha, it was submitted by the ld. counsel that Shri Manoj Kacha is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Proprietary CH M/s. Fitwell Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. Co. CH + BH + NH M/s. Chaitanya Industries Proprietary NH M/s. Kich Overseas Proprietary BH + NH Closed since 2004 3. There is no dispute about the fact that all the above named business entities have the five persons of Hapani family members mentioned above and they controlled these units. After considering the evidences gathered during investigation and records and documents, the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that KI was the main unit having the required infrastructure for manufacturing and maintenance of accounts and all the other firms/companies were created for the purpose of showing them as independent manufacturing units which they were not to derive maximum benefit from SSI exemption notification. 4. Heard both the sides in great detail. Ld. counsel on behalf of the appellants made his submissions on the basis of evidences/issues discussed by the Commissioner and his conclusions thereon. We find it appropriate to proceed on the same basis. The conclusions of the Commissioner and the basis the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce all the units were owned by family members only, Shri Virghese Philips was helping all the units at the instance of Shri Chimanbhai Nanjibhai Hapani. We find that even though searches have been conducted in all the units, excess/shortage of raw materials have not been found and there is no clear finding by panchas that the concerned untis did not have machinery for production of the goods which they claim to have produced. While the Commissioner has relied upon the statement of the clerk, the appellants have relied upon the submissions during cross examination and documentary evidence which show that delivery book place in the individual units. While it is the claim of the Revenue that all the units had a common head office, there is no allegation nor finding that other units were non existent or were located in the same premises. Therefore the claim that all the raw materials were received in the premises of KI does not emerge from the facts. 4.4. Costing job work charges were determined by Shri Bharatbhai Chimanbhai Hapani. The ld. counsel submitted that KMPL is getting goods manufactured from various units on job work basis out of raw materials supplied by KMPL as per th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r during the search operations, no discrepancy was found. KMPL gets the goods manufactured from other units as per their specification and out of their raw materials and no evidence has been shown that other units were doing it for KI. It is natural for KMPL to maintain account of raw material supplied to each unit and finished goods manufactured by each unit. No evidence has been put forth either documentary or by way of findings by panchas that materials were received in KI. 4.7. As regards the observation that quality of goods manufactured by all units is controlled by Shri Manoj Kacha, it was submitted by the ld. counsel that Shri Manoj Kacha is an employee of KMPL and therefore quality control by him is natural and is in the fitness of things. 4.8. As regards the observation that same PF code number was being used by KI and KMPL, ld. counsel submitted that Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner s letter has been relied upon for this and this cannot be a conclusive evidence. However, he submitted that appellant had written to the Provident Fund Commissioner pointing out that this was a mistake. 4.9. As regards the finding that office work of all units was done from the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted by the ld. A.R. that an amount of Rs.4.3 lakhs was paid to Vijayaben and Shilpaben. This was countered by the ld. counsel that stating that these amount were due to the individuals and were paid and there is no evidence to show that this was a flow back or transfer of money from one unit to the other. He also submitted that for every inter unit transfer of fund, appellants were made only out of outstanding of one unit to the other and proper accounts have been maintained and reflected in the books of account. We find that it is not the case of the department that these financial transfers were not reflected in the books of account. 4.14. The ld. A.R. also submitted that appellants had claimed all the units as one unit for getting SSI award. However, the ld. counsel submitted that it was clearly mentioned that it was Kich Group and no award was claimed on the basis of a single unit. Further, he submits that the claim was correct since all the units in Kich Group were SSI units during the relevant time. 5. The discussion of various grounds relied upon by the Commissioner in the order and the counter points submitted by the ld. counsel would show that Revenue has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
