9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal dismissed - Decided against the assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.2 or vice versa. Learned Tribunal considering the fact that operating result as well as asset and liability of both the concerns were consolidated in the financial statement (balancesheet) of the appellant. Statement recorded from Shri Bhargav on 22.07.1997 proves that there was a consolidated profit and loss account prepared for both the units. That consolidated statement enabled the appellant to avail loan from financial institutions. The income tax assessment of both the units was jointly made because of consolidated accounts filed by the appellant before the income tax authority. The learned Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the order of adjudicating authority. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the question involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rollatainers Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, DelhiIII [2004 (170) ELT 257 (SC)]. The Apex Court has held that two factories within same premises, same owner and common balancesheet with common boundaries, but having separate staff, separate management, separate passage, separate e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being manufactured by the appellant were developed by M/SPEL at their R & D Lab at Bombay, whose services were at the disposal of the appellant. They were at one point of time were manufactured by M/s. PEL and admittedly owned by them. Clearly, all this points to the inescapable conclusion that the three companies in question were intertwined in their operation and management. A careful scrutiny of the records therefore establish that both the aforesaid two basic features are overwhelmingly present in this case. Therefore it would likely seem that the purported fragmentation of the manufacturing process was but a mere ploy to avail of the SSI exemption. Piercing the corporate veil, when the notions of beneficial ownership and interdependency come into the picture, are no longer res integra. On this count, therefore, we have no hesitation whatsoever in affirming the order of the Tribunal, which was justified entirely through the precedent set by this Court. Issue II 14. The second issue concerns the question whether the `code names' used to denote soft drink flavours manufactured by the appellant could in fact be termed as `brand names' and if so, whether they belonge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed them to be manufactured by the appellant, their holding company cannot hide the fact that M/s PEL Ltd were in fact, the owner of the code/brand names. This conclusion is fortified by the fact that it was M/s PEL Ltd who transferred the right of the codes when they were sold to M/s. Coca Cola Company in November, 1993. Since the appellant was not the owner of the said brand names in question, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant will not be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 and 1/93 for the products with code names G44T, L 33A, TIIPC, TIIP, R66M and K55T which belonged to M/s PEL Ltd." 10. He also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Limited [2004 (171) ELT 155 (SC)] and the decision in the case of Calcutta Chromotype Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta [1998 (99) ELT 202 (SC)] and submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. In the case of Commissioner of Excise v. Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Limited (supra), the question whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than ordinary interest in the financial arrangements for companies. The statements of the employees/Directors show that the whole show was controlled, both on financial and management aspects by MACL. If these are not sufficient to show interdependence probably nothing better would show the same. The factors which have weighed with CEGAT like registration of three companies under the sales tax and income tax authorities have to be considered in the background of factual position noted above. When the corporate veil is lifted what comes into focus is only the shadow and not any substance about the existence of the three companies independently. The circular no.6/92 dated 29.5.1992 has no relevance because it related to notification no.175/86CE dated 1.3.1986 and did not relate to notification no.1/93. The extended period of limitation was clearly applicable on the facts of the case, as suppression of material features and factors has been clearly established. If in reality the three companies are front companies then the price per unit to be assessed in the hands of MACL is ₹ 5 and not ₹ 0.50 as disclosed. The question whether there was manufacture or not was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
