9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) [Order per: D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. - 1. The Appellants challenged the impugned Order dated 28-4-06 passed by learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal-I), Kolkata, holding that clubbing of clearances of the goods by both the Appellants were to be made in the hands of the Appellant No. (1), i.e. M/s. Suburban Industrial Works. The order of adjudication raised demand of Rs.7,46,632.87 (Rupees seven lakh forty-six thousand six hundred and thirty-two and paise eighty-seven) towards duty against the Appellant No. (1) and an amount of Rs. 40,000.00 (Rupees forty thousand) deposited by the Appellant No.(2) towards security for provisional release of the seized goods, was appropriated. Also penalty of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand aforesaid holding that clubbing of clearances of the goods by both the Appellants was to be made in the hands of the Appellant No. (1) and the Appellants were not entitled to the SSI exemption under Notification No.175/86, as amended from time to time. The Appellants being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original were before learned First Appellate Authority who confirmed the order of adjudication. While doing so, learned Authority framed the issue as under "Whether M/s. Suburban Industrial Works (lessee), referred to in these proceedings as SIWL and M/s. Cent Axia Air Flow (P) Ltd., referred to in these proceedings as CA can be clubbed together as far as the removals of the manufactured excisable goods are concerned." 3. Learned Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvation of learned Appellate Authority that one Shri Sanjib Nandy of the Appellant No. (2) stated that Shri A.K. Nemani had advised him for splitting the bills between the Appellant Nos. (1) and (2). One Quality Control Manager, Shri Prasanta Mukherjee of the Appellant No. (1) was transferred to the Appellant No. (2) on 23-6-92 without any Appointment Letter. But he looked after interest of the Appellant No. (2), for which he was paid by the Appellant No. (1). It was stated by Shri A.K. Nemani that he used to ask for blank letterheads of their customers for preparation of order and for avoiding Excise Law complications. 4. Learned First Appellate Authority observed that in the course of hearing, the Appellants failed to bring any cogent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t No. (1) and clubbed clearances of the goods made by both the Appellants, confirming the Order of Adjudication. 6. Against the first Appellate Order, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that both the Appellants are distinct and separate units and Circular No. 6/92 dated 25-9-92 shall not be misconstrued. Both the Appellants being separately dealt by the Income-tax Authorities, Industrial Departments, Authorities under Factories Act as well as by PP Authorities, their basic structures were not liable to be demolished by any stretch of imagination, without full proof of being one and the same. The proceeding was barred by limitation being related to the period from April, 1988 to 8-12-1992, for issuance of the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE, Madu v. National Adhesive Chem; (g) 2006 (203) E.L.T. 308 (Tri. - Kolkata) - Switching Electronics v. CCE, Kolkata-V; (h) 2006 (202) E.L.T. 806 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Britomatics Engg. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai; (i) 2006(201) E.L.T. 250 (Tri - Bang) - Studioline Interior Sys. v. CCE, Bangalore -I; (j) 2006(201) E.L.T. 132 (Tri. - Bang) - Kerala Footwear Products v. CCE, Calicut ; (k) 2006(198) E.L.T. 106 (Tri. - Mum) - CCE, Ahmedd. v. Limca Flavr Fragr; (l) 2006 (196) E.L.T. 173 (Tri. - Mum) - CCE Cus, Ahmedd v. Vimal Deterg. Cakes; (m) 2006(195) E.L.T. 78 (Tri. - Mum) - Releef Pharmaceuticals v. CCE, Aurangabad ; (n) 2006 (193) E.L.T 314 (Tri. - Mum) - Unity Industr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the preceding paragraph, remained uncontradicted even before this Forum. We heard both sides extensively and called for evidence in defence of each and every observation made by learned Appellate Authority including the issue relating to statements recorded from the persons as appeared at pages 6 to 8 of the impugned Order. The Appellants although made several citations, could not specifically bring their case to the fore of any of the citations they made as aforesaid. Without leading evidence to contradict the findings of learned Appellate Authority below, the Appellants merely cried that they are not liable for clubbing of clearances. However, on proper consideration of the facts and evidence guided by Apex Court judgment cited by Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
