9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olkata upholding the order of adjudication. The Appellate Authority below held that clubbing of clearance of the appellants, i.e. M/s. Bright Paints & Chemicals and M/s. Swan Paint & Varnish Works, (herein after referred to as "SPVW") was proper. It was also held that imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was justified. To come to the above conclusion, the ld. Com missioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant firm and proprietor of M/s. Swan Paint & Varnish Works, are the members of the same family, who run business in different names. M/s. Swan Paint & Varnish Works started manufacture when the appellants' firm stopped manufacture, reaching the exemption limit as SSI. He examined the agreement between the parties i.e. the appellant and M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He urged that both the concerns are two different SSI with distinct status. They should not be dealt as one unit when they both are virtually different on facts. He further argued that the agreement dated 13-12-1991 made between the appellant and M/s. Swan Paint & Varnish Works was purely on commercial expediency and not to take any undue advantage. No doubt, M/s. Swan Paint & Varnish Works was to manufacture paints against the order placed by the appellant, at the initial stage, but the cost of input was borne by manufacturer i.e. M/s. Swan Paint & Varnish Works and the goods were billed. Wherever raw materials were supplied by the appellant, cost thereof was adjusted in the bills raised by M/s. SPVW against the appellant. He further sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly denied exemption and clubbing of clearance was proper. Accordingly, order of ld. Appellate Authority is sustainable. 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. 5.1 From the written submissions made by ld. Counsel for the Appellant, it appears that Shri Achinta Kumar Mukherjee, who was partner in the appellant firm, retired w.e.f. 1-4-1993. Annexure - A dated 30-4-1993 annexed to the written submissions was the intimation of retirement of Shri Achinta Kumar Mukherjee, addressed to the Range Superintendent. There was an endorsement on 4-5-1993 over that Annexure by Excise authorities asking for submission of copy of registration certificate, partnership deed, for amendment. There is no material on record to prove that either income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said judgment as under: "8. Simply because both the factories are in the same premises that does not lead to the inference that the factories are one and the same. In the present case, from the facts it is apparent that there is no commonality of the purpose, both the factories have a separate entrance, there is a passage in between and they are not complimentary to each nor they are subsidiary to each other. The end product is also different, one manufacturers duplex board and the other manufactures paper. They are separately registered with the Central Excise Department. The staff is separate, their management is separate. It is also not the case of revenue that end product of one factory is raw material for the other factory. Fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
