9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI]. On perusal of the records, there is no material available of flow-back of funds. It is well settled by a series of decisions that mere common partners and proprietor of other concern, and use of staff etc., would not sufficient to hold that units are one and the same. After going through the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), we do not find any reason for clubbing of the three units. On the identical issue the Revenue initiated the proceedings in other Commissionerates. The proceedings initiated in the Hyderabad Commissionerate and Bangalore Commissionerate were dropped by the respective Commissioner (A). There is no material that the order of the Tribunal was challenged before the higher Appellate Authority. In the present appeals also, Revenue took the same grounds as in other cases. We have already stated that there is no evidence of financial flow back with the other units. So, we agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on both the issues. - No reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/512-513/2004 - Final Order Nos. 40874-40875/2014 - Dated:- 2-12-2014 - P. K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y have a separate sales tax registration and no flow back of money from one unit to another unit. He submits that it is evident from the statement of various persons that the respondent No.2 Shri. S. Ramanathan, Managing Director of the respondent Company No.1, is controlling the other two units. It is also submitted that Tab Top is a partnership concern with Shri C. Adiseshan, Mrs. Savithri Ramanathan, Mrs. Prema Karthikeyan as parners. Mr. Savithri Ramanathan, is the wife of Shri S. Ramanathan, MD of the respondent Company, Mrs. Prema Karthikeyan is wife of Mr. S. Karthikeyan, another Director of the respondent Company. Fab Craft is a proprietorship concern with Shri S. Srinivasan, B/o. Shri S. Ramanathan, proprietor of Fab Craft. It is submitted that all the persons in their statements admitted that Shri. S. Ramanathan is looking after the activities of the Companies. It is stated that Shri S. Ramanathan cleared all current liabilities of Tab Top and it would done under his supervision. It is clear from the material evidence that the other two units are part of the respondent company. It is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not examined the material evidence on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... several proceedings were initiated at Bangalore and Hyderabad and no proceeding was initiated at Cochin. He further submits that the proceedings initiated at Hyderabad was dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) by Order in Appeal No. 38 39/2007 (H-III) dated 30.10.2007. On appeal by the department, by Final Order No. 1327-1328/2008 dated 27.11.2008, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. In the proceedings initiated at Bangalore, the Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore, by O-in-A No. 493/2013-CE dated 24.09.2013, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the adjudication order. No proceeding was initiated at Cochin. 7. Regarding clubbing of the other two units, he submits that there is no reason for clubbing of private limited company with proprietorship and Partnership Company. He relied upon the decision of N.D Industries Vs. CCE, Pune -2003 (157) ELT 459 (Tri.-Del.) and also Board's Circular dated 29.05.1992, which was referred in the case of N.D. Industries (supra). Both the proprietorship and partnership firms are two independent income tax assessees and there is no material available on record of flow-back of money. 8. Regarding classi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision. It was found that the entire sale of M/s. Tab Top is with B. K. Office only. It is contended that the actual participation and performance of the dejure partner of M/s. Tab Top have officiate contact of routine business. It is a family business of Shri S. Ramanathan. On perusal of the adjudication order, we find that M/s. Tab Top and Fab Craft, manufactured general furniture such as tables, chairs, computer tables, cupboards, filing cabinets and parts of modular work stations and sold to M/s. B.K. Office. Shri S. Ramanathan, procured the orders from buyers and placed to the other two firms for manufacturing of goods. M/s. B.K. Office, in their brochure claimed the goods were manufactured by them. We find from the adjudication order, that M/s. Tab Top and Fab Craft, are separate entities and all the ingredients such as constitution of partnership/proprietorship, sales tax registration etc. are existence, should serve as an independent business entity. The investigation had not proved any non-receipt of raw materials and manufacture of components thereon from these two units. It is contended that M/s. S. Ramanathan, MD of M/s. BK. Office has wide rapport in the market and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le, which is not movable as such. If dismantled, it loses the very shape and structure it had retained earlier. The activity of placing a chair, a trolley and storage systems in the above said partitioned cubicle or modular cubicle would not amount to manufacture of modular furniture. The complete pieces of furniture like trolley, storage system, file holders, overhead storage unit, wall hanging storage shelf and chairs are known by their own identity and they do not loose their identity if place inside the cubicle to be called as part of modular furniture. 12. Another aspect of this matter is that, on the identical issue, the appellants operated their business situated at Hyderabad. A show cause notice was issued by the Hyderabad Commissionerate for clubbing of the three units as well as on classification of the goods. The Commissioner (A), by Order in appeal no. 38 39/2007 (H-III) dated 30.10.2007, set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellants. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below: 7. I have carefully gone through the record of this appeal and the submissions made by the appellants. The adjudicating authority's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or instance, in the case of Commissioner Vs. Kanchan Industries - 2006 (195) ELT A91 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld that decision of Appellate Tribunal which held that sale of entire production of goods by the manufacturing units to one buyer at a mutually agreed price who also bears responsibility of advertisement and publicity, is only a business transaction not establishing mutuality of interest in the business of each other to hold the buyer a 'related person' within the meaning of Section 4(4)(c)(i) of Central Excise Act, 1944. 13. Revenue filed the appeals before the Bangalore Bench against this order. By Final Order No. 1327 1328/2008 dated 27.11.2008, the Tribunal rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue. 14. The purpose of narration of the above facts is that, on the identical issue the Revenue initiated the proceedings in other Commissionerates. The proceedings initiated in the Hyderabad Commissionerate and Bangalore Commissionerate were dropped by the respective Commissioner (A). There is no material that the order of the Tribunal was challenged before the higher Appellate Authority. In the present appeals also, Revenue took the same grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
