9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the duty liability on the later has not been correctly computed by the adjudicating authority. Held that: - the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has elaborately discussed that Perfect Engineers, the Respondent No.3 was not a dummy unit of Supershine Laundry Systems Pvt. Ltd., the Respondent No.1 and has also held that except recording of the statement, no other corroborative documentary eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-I. The grievance of Revenue is that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal and proper, inasmuch as, the respondent No.3 was not a dummy unit of respondent No.1 and that the duty liability on the later has not been correctly computed by the adjudicating authority. Revenue has also assailed the findings of the Commissioner (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent No.3 is not a dummy unit of Respondent No.1, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the documentary evidences, such as, Income Tax Returns, Sales Tax Returns and Bank Account etc. maintained by the Respondent No.3. In view of the fact that the Department has not produced any corroborative documentary evidences, indicating financial flow back and mutuality of interest between the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per and justified. I also find that by extending the benefit of SSI Exemption to the Respondent No.1, in terms of Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 for the year 2004-05, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 2,27,907/- with regard to confiscation of laundry machines seized from the factory premises of Respondent No.3. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
