9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no.2 was a dummy unit of respondent No.1. In view of these reasons, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the Revenue and allowed the appeals by majority of two against one. The findings of the Tribunal are clearly based on facts. In view of some of the salient facts noted above, it is impossible to hold that the findings of fact given by two of the Members are perverse. - 81 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2009 - F.I.REBELLO and J.H.BHATIA, JJ. Mr. R. V. Desai, Senior Counsel with Mr. A. S. Rao for the Appellant Mr. Atul Rajadhyaksha, Senior Counsel with Mr. Kedar Wagle for the respondents. [Judgment: per J. H. BHATIA, J.] - Though several questions have been stated as questions of law in this Appeal, the learned Senior Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent No.2 and one Mr. P. G. Joshi, who was a partner of both the firms and Mr. Rajendra Joshi, who was the Manager of the respondent No.1. The said order was challenged in Appeal No.E-2927 to 2930 of 2000 and E-2096/2000 before the CESAT. 4. The learned Judicial Member rejected the contention of the Revenue that the respondent No.2 was a dummy of respondent No.1 and that the production of both these units should be clubbed for the purpose of imposing duty. In the result, the Judicial Member proposed to allow the appeals. However, the Technical Member of the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner of Central Excise and maintained the Order-in-original. In view of the difference of opinion between the two Members, the matter was referr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the process of shifting from Kagal to Shiroli, the production was much less, as production was undertaken only for three months. Independent account books were maintained by them even after shifting of respondent no.1 from Kagal to Shiroli. Both the units were not situated on the same property. The respondent No.1 was situated at Plot No.B-15, while respondent no.2 was situated on Plot No.B-16 of MIDC, Shiroli. Merely because both the firms were dealing in the same type of production and because one of the partners in both the firms was same, it could not be concluded that respondent no.2 was a dummy unit of respondent No.1. In view of these reasons, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the Revenue and allowed the appeals by majority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
