9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aused to appellant. Public interest demands direction for pre-deposit is essential to safeguard interest of justice without causing irreparable injury to either side. Therefore, the appellant is directed to deposit ₹ 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs) in 10 equal monthly instalments of 5 Lakhs each to be payable by 25th of each month and first instalment shall commence from February, 2014. So far as stay application of Shri Ashok Kumar is concerned, we direct that the said appellant shall deposit ₹ 5,00,000/- in 3 instalments of ₹ 2,00,000/- each by 25th February and 25th March. The cost instalment of ₹ 1,00,000/- is to be deposited 25th April. - E/S/58162/2013, E/57586/2013-EX[DB], E/S/58163/2013, E/57587/2013-E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. So also, mere association with any of the concern does not bring a person to be an assessee under law. 3. Jain Pole Industries was a business organisation which came into existence from December, 2004 and it was well known to the Department. Even before that, the existence of Jain Pole Products was on records of the Department and known to them. Similarly, the private limited company, which came into existence in 2006 has independent existence and known to the Department. One being related to the other, the Departments allegation that Jain Pole Industries should be made liable for clearance of other 2 business concerns is untenable. 4. Placing para 13 at page 26 of the show cause notice, ld. Counsel says that the allegation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in all the four firms. Therefore they constitute one manufacturer. (ii) Labour/Supervisor/employees for all the units were common and were deployed and exchanged / shifted as per requirement of individual unit. These facts were admitted by their labourer in their statements that they worked in other units also for which no additional payment were made to them. These facts were also admitted by Shri Ashok Kumar Jain in his statement dated 27.01.2011 which was subsequently accepted by Shri Manish Kumar Jain in his statement dated 15.02.2011. (iii) The administrative/office staff of all the units was common and worked for all the units and no extra payment except monthly salary was made to them for additional work of other units. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies were embossed on the stock seized from M/s Jain Pole Products, Alwar which proved that the said goods were manufactured with the marks of other units showing common production for which no explanation was put forward by either of the owners. Besides this, no royalty/charges for using the name or marks of other unit were found paid by the concerned unit. (vii) On the basis of ledgers and invoices of all the four units, it appeared that raw material was purchased by them in any of the units as per availability of funds and thereafter the said raw material was transferred to other units in the guise of trading sales in their respective ledgers. This indicated that purchase of raw material sin al the said units was very much centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven in the ledgers of the units. Some time the payments to third parties were made by the particular unit on behalf of other unit for which no sale/purchase was mentioned in the accounts of the firms who had actually made the payment. This shows that all the units were having financial interest in one another. This fact appeared proved from the chart prepared (Annexure- C to notice) on the basis of he ledgers of the units. (xii) Shri Ashok Kumar Jain Shri Manish Kumar Jain in their statements had admitted that the funds of one unit were being used by other units as per requirement of other units and vise-versa without paying/receiving any interest on either side. (xiii) Shri Manish Kumar Jain in his statement recorded on 15.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Adjudicating Authority in page 78 as to the financial and management control either by father or by son, to protect interest of Revenue, taking into consideration financial difficulties, we do appreciate that the appellant may be deprived of process of hearing if undue hardship is cause to them. But we do not find any merit on the plea of financial hardship because the interest of Revenue on the other-hand shall suffer if there is no direction for pre-deposit. Not only we appreciate that there shall be no hardship to the appellants by our interim order but also no undue hardship is expected to be caused to appellant. Public interest demands direction for pre-deposit is essential to safeguard interest of justice without causing irrepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
