9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest or flow back of funds. When it is so, then the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue denovo - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal No.3213-3214 of 2010 - A/52617–52618/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 15-3-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Sh. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant Sh. G. R. Singh, AR for the Revenue ORDER Per: (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeals are filed by the appellant against the order-in-appeal No.175 176/2010(Denovo) dated 23.07.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise Service tax, Indore. The period of dispute is from April, 2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of both the units, it was found that- (a) Sh. Bal Subramanium, Manager (Operations) and Authorised Signatory of M/s NTPL were also looking of the operations of M/s NVIS; (b) Shri Rakesh Kumar Sen, Purchase Executive of M/s KVIS looking after the procurement of raw materials, spare parts of machines and consumables, etc. was salaried employee of M/s NTPL and did not receive any payment or remuneration from M/s NVIS; (c) Sh. Hemant Mugatwal, Asst. Manager (Accounts) of M/s NTPL was also looking after accounts related work of M/s NVIS; and (d) Sales work of M/s NVIS was being looked after by Sh. Gijo Mathew, Commercial Executive of M/s NTPL. 3. Inquiry also revealed that M/s NVIS did not have the sufficient space to manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) seized goods valued at ₹ 8,66,829/- were confiscated with option to redeem the same on payment of a redemption fine of ₹ 50,000/-; and (d) penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- was imposed on M/s NVIS under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 7. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order-in-Appeal No.IND-I/149/2008 dated 27.08.2008 upholds the Addl. Commissioner s order. However, on further appeal, the Tribunal vide Final Order No.48-49/2009 dated 14.01.2009 remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo decision. In de novo proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 27.08.2008 again upholds the Addl. Commissioner s order and dismissed the appeals. Against impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s STPL, hence, it is clear from the fact that the employees responsible for sale of the finished products and procurement of raw materials, maintenance of the accounts of the two companies and operations M/s STPL and M/s NVIS are common, that though M/s NVIS in their invoices were showing their address as 5, Gulmohar Colony, Indore. In fact, there was no factory in existence at that place and in their premises at M/227, Veena Nagar, Indore mentioned in the Central Excise Registration, there was not enough space to accommodate the machinery required for the manufacture of their final products, which are claimed to have been manufactured and in fact at that place, only some old tools were found, that at the time of officers visit to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Executive of M/s STPI was also engaged in the sales related work of M/s NVIS; (b) Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sen, Purchase Executive of M/s STPL was also looking after the same work of M/s NVIS, while he was not receiving any payment or remuneration from them; (c) Similarly, Shri Hemant Mugateal, Asst. Manager (Accounts) of M/s STPL was looking after the Accounts related work of M/s NVIS; and (d) Sh. Bal Subramanium, Manager (Operation) of M/s STPL was also looking after the operations of M/s NVIS. No satisfactorily explanation has been given for the above by Sh. Amrish Kela. 12. However, the ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. Electro Mechanical Engg. Corpn. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here would be no explanation as to what the unit which was working from 1973 onwards, was actually doing. In this scenario, it is held that M/s Tirupati alloy and Steel Pvt. Ltd. was independent private limited company engaged in the manufacture of final product from 1973 onwards and its clearance cannot be clubbed with subsequently that Mrs. Neha Beri Mhase was a child when the said unit were formed and became Director of the same subsequently on the death of her father. In such a scenario, the finding of the adjudicating authority that Mrs. Neha Beri Mhase was controlling the affairs of the manufacturing units, in which case their clearance has to be clubbed cannot be appreciated and upheld. We find no merits in the Revenue s stand. Accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
