9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur-I. The impugned order has held that these two appellants are not independent units during 2000-2001 and their value of clearances is to be clubbed for deciding on the eligibility of SSI exemption during the said period of 2001-2002. The impugned order holds that M/s. MMPL is the main unit and M/s. AMMPL was created to avail the benefit of SSI exemption. 2. Both the appellants have been represented by ld. Advocate, Shri B.L. Narsimhan, who has inter alia submitted as follows: (i) The appellants factories are in different premises, which are adjacent to each other. (ii) They are holding separate individual registrations with the Central Excise Department. (iii) They are working independently and are registered separately with variou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very clear. The impugned order points out that their separation has been created artificially with an intention to avail the benefit of SSI exemption only. The impugned order points out in its para-20 that the MOU signed between the two appellants does not have vital details. The impugned order mentions in para-20 that "there cannot be a rent agreement without details, area and specification of the property to be given on rent between two independent companies/ persons but it can be possible only in the case of related parties. Similarly in the case of Point D Storage Godown no area or capacity of godown has been mentioned in the MOU. Thus, I find that this MOU was created only with the sole intention of availing SSI exemption by artifici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2001 (128) ELT 175 (Tri.-Del.) to hold that the present appellants cannot be called independent businesses with reference to entitlement of Notification no.175/86-CE. The appellants in the case of Industrial Supplies & Services (supra) went in appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the said appeal was dismissed and the said order of the CESTAT was sustained. Consequently, the clearances of the present appellants are required to be clubbed for the purpose of deciding on the eligibility for entitlement to benefit of Notification no.175/86-CE.
6. Considering above discussions and the case laws quoted, both the appeals have no merits and are hereby dismissed.
[ Order pronounced on 12.08.2016 ] X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
