9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- O-I-O No. 19-20 dated 27.12.2017 460-464 dated 01.11.2018 2. The relevant factual matrix for the purpose of disposal of these appeals is as follows:- 3. M/s. Sona Plastics Udyog, a factory is engaged in the manufacture of various plastic items and has the manufacturing unit in Khasra No.29-30 of Revenue Village, Bhoyatawala at Benad Road in Jaipur, Rajasthan. While acting on an intelligence, Department conducted a search in the premises of M/s. Sona Plastics Udyog/ the appellant on 14.09.2016 in the presence of two independent witnesses and the authorised signatory of the appellant Shri Harphool Singh Jhuria. It was observed that the said Shri Harphool Singh Jhuria is the Proprietor of M/s. Siddharth Plastoware also which was found functional in the same premises as that of appellant. It was observed that both manufacturing units i.e. M/s. Sona Plastics and M/s.Siddharth Plastoware had a single boundary wall, a single facility for manufacturing of plastic items was found installed and working in the aforesaid premises bearing Kasra No.29-30. A single electricity power connection as obtained from Jaipur Vidhuth Vitharan Nigam Ltd. in the name of the appellant alongwith the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and have wrongly clubbed the clearances of the said two units denying the benefit of SSI unit exemption to both of them. It is submitted that only basis for the Department for considering two units as one is that both the manufacturing units exist in the same premises, they share the common electricity connection, common staff, the records are maintained in common office existing in the common premises and the storage for raw-material as well as finished goods is also the common space. It is submitted that none of these grounds can be the ground to form an opinion that two distinct manufacturing units are one and the common unit. 6. The observation and allegation of the Department that two different names given are with the intention to wrongly avail the SSI exemption benefit are apparently false. It is submitted that both the manufacturing units have separate registration numbers. M/s. Siddharth Plastoware rather is prior in existence. Though there is common electricity connection but a Sub-meter has been installed in the premises of M/s. Siddharth Plastoware. Both the companies have separate Proprietors. The authorised signatory of one is the Proprietor of another can again no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... showed the quantum of clearances, the actual value thereof and the value charged from the buyers. These documents have rightly been held as a proof for unaccounted goods in the form of raw-material. These were also rightly held to be the evidence about lack in stock of work in progress and also about the finished goods. Impressing upon the order to be justified and justifying the findings about both the manufacturing units otherwise as one to be correct ld. D.R. has prayed for dismissal of impugned appeal. 9. After hearing the parties and perusing the entire record, we observe that findings are two folds thus hold as follows:- A. Findings with respect to the show cause notice of demand and confiscation: The adjudicating authority has confirmed the impugned demand on the sole basis that M/s.Siddharth Plastoware is a dummy company formed by Shri. Harphool Singh Jhuria who is the authorised signatory of the appellant and Proprietor of M/s.Siddharth Plastoware and that the Proprietor of the appellant is none but the wife of said Shri Harphool Singh Jhuria. The moot controversy therefore is as to: "Whether the blood relation between the Proprietors of two concern and few things to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be said to be dummy of another unit which is yet to come into existence. It was more so where allegation of clandestine removal of goods and their valuation had not been proved. Mere quoting of statements of proprietors and some of their employees was not enough. Also, use of common electricity connection, accountant, store room for raw materials could not be reason for clubbing clearances of both units when there was no dispute about both units being complete in themselves and manufacturing goods independently of each other." 12. In the present case we further observe that M/s.Siddharth Plastoware is mentioned to be existing since the year 2005. We observe from the record that the registration certificate as issued in the name of M/s. M/s.Siddharth Plastoware bearing No.08964050405 records the date thereof as 11th February, 2008 with Mr. Harphool Singh Jhuria as the sole Proprietor and the company to exist at Village Martadu Badi, Post Beebeepur, Fatehpur Shekhawati, Sikar, Rajasthan whereas M/s. Sona Plastics Udyog/ the appellant is mentioned to be existing since the year 2009. The registration certificate bears the registration No. as 08574151451 which Smt. Suman Jhuria as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the office room and the storage room are same for both the units cannot, therefore, be the ground for clubbing the clearances specially when the registration certificates of both the units clarifies that the final product and raw material of two of them is absolutely different. There is no denial of the Department to the fact that dyes and moulds used by both the units are also altogether different. 13. In addition to the commonness as is alleged, which otherwise stands falsified in view of above discussion, the Department had to prove the mutual financial dependence of M/s.Siddharth Plastoware upon the appellant before alleging the former to be a dummy unit of the later. This Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jagjeevan Das and Company vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1985 (19) ELT 441 has held that Department should conclusively prove that the firms were not distinct and separate, before clearances of separate firm can be clubbed together. We draw our support from the another adjudication in the case of B. Ganapathy Bhandarkar vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner reported in 1990 (60) FLR 143 wherein it has been held that unless an interconnection between the tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
