9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 001 No.318/2003 dt. 23/10/2003 Rs.1,15,711/- Since the issue involved in all the three is same, all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of appeals No.568 & 569/2003 are taken. 2.1. The facts of the present case are that the appellant M/s. Fibre Shells Ltd. (FSL, for short) are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. composite container of paper and paper board and paper tubes falling under chapter sub-heading 4819.19 and 4822.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants have been availing SSI exemption and Notification No.9/2000-CE dt. 01/03/2000 as amended. During the course of verification by the Department, it was observed that there exis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quivalent penalty under Section 11AC and penalty under Rule 173Q. The Addl. Commissioner refrained from imposing any penalty on FFL and on the General Manager common to both FFL and FSL. 2.3. On the same issue, covering the subsequent period January 2001 to September 2001, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise issued the show-cause notice dt. 15/01/2002 on the appellant proposing for action on the same ground as in the earlier show-cause notice and proposed to demand the duty to the extent of Rs. 4,01,123/- and vide order dt. 30/04/2002 confirmed the demand besides imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant. Aggrieved by the Orders-in-original, the appellant filed three separate appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) who vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2001(133) ELT 423 (Tri. Chennai)] ii. Prima Controls (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune [1994(72) ELT 62 (Tri.)] iii. Padma Packages (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Combatore [1997(90) ELT 175 (Tri.)] 5.1. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that both the authorities below have considered the documentary as well as oral evidences and thereafter have come to the conclusion that the appellants are a dummy unit of FFL unit. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has considered the following facts in order to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant and FFL are not really independent units. i. Though the units are located at separate places, all the records pertaining to FSL were being maintained in the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different. Further, it is pertinent to reproduce the relevant findings of the Commissioner(Appeals), which are reproduced herein below:- Both the units have common management. This is very clear. I don t think that the appellants deny this. The accounting records of M/s.FSL are kept in the premises of M/s.FFL. It the units are really independent, why it should be so So no one can find fault with the inescapable conclusion that both units have common management. Before the appellants pour out the catena of decisions in his favour, I have to repeat that I am not saying that this fact alone compels me to come to a conclusion that M/s. FSL is a dummy of the other unit. Both the units have been using the same logo in all their documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be assailed in the face of the above-mentioned facts. Again, I have to emphasise that this alone is not the ground for the conclusions of the adjudicating authority. In 1998-99, an amount of Rs. 2.92 lakhs was shown as profit for the year in respect of M/s.FSL by adjusting material transfer of Rs. 6.7 lakhs from M/s.FFL. But in reality, no such movement of raw materials had taken place during 1998-99 as verified from their RG23A Part-I register. The above window-dressing was possible only because M/s.FSL is a dummy of M/s.FFL. If M/s.FSL were an independent unit, could the above manipulation be possible There are instances when payments were made to M/s.FFL though the invoices were in the name of M/s.FSL. Is it possible if M/s.FSL we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the parties and perusal of impugned order and the decisions relied upon by both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order wherein the Commissioner(Appeals) has given detailed reasons for his finding that the appellant is a dummy unit of M/s.FFL. Further we find that the appellants have not been able to bring any evidence to prove that both the units are independent. Further we find that both the units have been using the same logo in all their documents and they have common management and personnel working for both the units. Further we also find that there is a mutuality of interest and the fund flow between the two companies. We also find that both the units have a common Managing Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
