9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c. and is holder of Central Excise Registration No.18/Alw-1/CH.73/94. 2. On a surprise visit undertaken by the officers of the Central Excise Division, Alwar, it was found that M/s. EMEC had floated two front units, viz., M/s. Cold Steel Corporation and M/s. Super Steel Corporation in order to fraudulently avail the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No.1/93-C.E. dated 28th February 1993 which exempted clearances of specified goods from payment of duty and concessional duty in the case of certain SSI units. 3. Since, according to the Revenue, floating of two front units by M/s. EMEC had resulted in short payment of duty, show cause notices were issued on 1st June 2000 to all the respondent-companies alleging that M/s. EMEC delibe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from imposing individual penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- on the proprietor of M/s. EMEC under Rule 209A, ordered recovery of interest under Section 11AB. 6. The Commissioner passed the said order on the ground, inter alia, that all the three units had a common office and had some common employees and came to the conclusion that all the three firms were separate only on paper and not in reality. 7. Respondents carried the matter in appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, ('the Tribunal'). The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, held that the respondents (appellants before the Tribunal) had disclosed all the material facts, as regards their constitution and functioning, at the ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their premises were adjoining each other. The Tribunal, while setting aside the order of the Commissioner, has held that there is no evidence on record to prove that there was mutuality of business interest or there was flow back of funds from one unit to another. The finding recorded by the Tribunal, being a finding of fact, does not call for any interference. 11. As noted earlier, on the question of invocation of extended period of limitation, the Tribunal has held that the demand of duty was for the period from 1.5.1995 to 31.3.2000 whereas show cause notice was served only on 1.6.2000. The Tribunal has held that since there was no wilful or suppression of any material facts, extended period of limitation could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
