9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndustries (appellant herein), Venkateswara Industries, Sri Manipandian Industries and Sri Vinayaga Industries located in the same building. All the four units were reported to be manufacturers of R.T.S. grills, Clamps, distribution boxes, eye bolts etc. used in the transmission of electricity. After gathering evidence by way of statements, verification of stocks, records, the department reached to a conclusion that the appellant herein alone was the entity behind the production of excisable goods and the other three units were dummy units started in the name of blood relatives of Sri R.D. Pandian for the purpose of evading payment of central excise duty on the goods manufactured by the appellant herein. The officers noticed 275 grills in fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant, learned counsel Ms. Minchu Mariam Punnose explained the facts and submitted the following arguments:- 4.1 That for the subsequent period, vide Order-in-Original No. 45/2004 dated 21.12.2004, the adjudicating authority for the period from 10.9.1987 to 28.2.1990 (for 5 separate show cause notices) had confirmed the demand of Rs. 27,80,571.47 and also imposed penalties against the appellant as well as the partners besides separate other penalties. In appeal, against the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the entire proceedings. That this would strongly show that the allegations in the show cause notices are without any substance. 4.2 She referred to the allegations in the show cause notice and also the findings in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate bank accounts with loan facility. That department has not been able to establish any cash flow and therefore the demand raised by clubbing the clearances of all four units is not legal or proper. 5. The learned AR Shri K.P. Muralidharan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that for the subsequent period, the Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the proceedings on different set of facts. In the said matter, show cause notices were not issued separately to the dummy units and it is also seen noted that the SCN were vague. Taking note of these aspects and for other grounds, the proceedings were dropped specifically clarifying that the said order shall not prejudice the adjudication or decision to be rendered in the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it to other units. That therefore, the confirmation of duty is legal and proper and the penalties imposed are also justified. 6. We have heard the submissions made by both sides. 7. The allegation is that the appellant unit is the main unit and Sri R.D. Pandian who is proprietor is controlling all the other three units which were floated by Sri R.D. Pandian in the name of his wife and other family members. The goods manufactured by four units in question were classifiable as RTS Grills, Clamps, eye bolts etc. which are all goods related to electricity line materials. It is also brought out that all the units were sharing the same machinery and were engaged in the manufacture of electricity line materials only and had not manufactured any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
