9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entity has filed ER-1 returns for clearances purportedly effected by them. However, even the copies of ER-1 returns filed by Navneet Industries relied upon in the SCN were not furnished to the appellants herein. There is also no indication that investigations were extended by department to Navneet Industries also, to bring out irrefutable evidences that the said entity had been manufacturing in the same premises even after they handed over the premises to the appellants. The argument that in the present case, since clubbing is sought to be made of two units which are allegedly manufacturing and clearing goods from the same premises, therefore SCN is not required to be given to the other unit is a facile one. When the value of clearances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese entities works out to ₹ 2,15,83,048/- which is ₹ 65,83,048/- in excess of the exemption limit of ₹ 1,50,00,000/-. Hence, the differential duty is liable to be paid by the appellant. In adjudication, the original authority vide order dated 12.04.2010 confirmed the demand with interest as proposed in the notice and also imposed equal penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 31.01.2003 upheld the order of the original authority. Hence, this appeal. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant Ld. Advocate, Shri M. Karthikeyan, made a number of submissions which are broadly summarized as under:- a) The unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neet Industries with that of the appellant, no separate SCN has been issued to Navneet Industries. e) As has been laid down in a number of decisions, non issue of SCN to the other unit for clubbing of value of their clearances with that of the assessee, will vitiate the proceedings. He places reliance on the ratio of the following decisions:- i) Thiraviam Engg. Works Vs. CCE, Tirunelveli 2018 (3) TMI 253-CESTAT-Chennai ii) CGST (EAST), New Delhi Vs. Unitech Containers Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (358) ELT 99 (del.) iii) CCE, Kolkata Diamond Scaffolding Co. 2011 (274) ELT 10 (Cal.) 3.1 On the other hand, Ld. AR made the following submissions:- i) In the first place, the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Advocate all concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.08.2008. All the same, there is no proof brought forth in the SCN that Navneet Industries were actually and still functioning from the very same premises which had been taken over by the appellant, namely, at No. 142-A, Sadayankuppam, Village Road, Manali, Chennai-600 0103. For reasons best known to Navneet Industries, the said entity has filed ER-1 returns for clearances purportedly effected by them. However, we find that even the copies of ER-1 returns filed by Navneet Industries relied upon in the SCN were not furnished to the appellants herein. There is also no indication that investigations were extended by department to Navneet Industries also, to bring out irrefutable evidences that the said entity had been manufacturing in the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
