9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ories and from any factory by one or more manufacturer, exceeds Rs. 200 lacs in preceding financial year, the same was increased w.e.f. 01.04.1995 to Rs. 300 lacs vide notification dated 16.03.1995 - the notification would only be granting exemption in the cases where the manufacturers have cleared overall amount less than Rs. 200 lacs/300 lacs as the case may be. If the production from different factories and clearance is altogether more than the said amount, the exemption cannot be allowed. Both the Appellate Authorities are agreed upon to conclude that infact the Jaybee Industries consisting of N. K. Aggarwal and Pardeep Aggarwal as partners was a single partnership firm having two factories one at Bathinda and another at Panchkula and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms, by a common name i.e. Jaybee Industries at Bathinda and Jaybee Industries at Panchkula were a single partnership firm. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Panchkula firm was entitled to exemption and it cannot be said that clearance of goods of unit of Malout at Bathinda were evaded and the Central excise duty to the tune of Rs. 3,01,518/- had been evaded. 4. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision taken by the Apex Court in case titled as Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Cus. Vs. J.C. Shah , 1978(2) ELT 317, decided on 02.09.1962 wherein the Apex Court had found that the two factories by separate partnerships, having identical partners, cannot be said to be of same person as claimed by the appellant. He als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also perused the record. 8. The admitted facts which are on record are that M/s Jaybee Industries, Bhatinda exceeded the exemption limit and was, therefore, paying duty at the normal rate. But M/s Jaybee Industries, Panchkula did not exceed the exemption limit and therefore paid duty at the concessional rate under notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993 and followed prescribed procedures. 9. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 02.08.1999 for recovery of excise duty of Rs. 3,01,518/- for the period 1994-95 and 1995-96. The said notice was duly replied by the appellant. However, Additional Commissioner Central Excise vide order dated 6.11.2000 held that the appellant firm was not entitled to benefit of exemption under notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and clearance is altogether more than the said amount, the exemption cannot be allowed. 13. We also find that both the individuals, who were partners of the firm Jaybee Industries, have established one factory at Bathinda and other at Panchkula by the name of same firm. In these circumstances, their contention that they had entered two different partnership deeds for the purpose of setting up two factories is found to be only to get the benefit with wrongful intention. We are in agreement with both the Appellate Authorities to conclude that infact the Jaybee Industries consisting of N. K. Aggarwal and Pardeep Aggarwal as partners was a single partnership firm having two factories one at Bathinda and another at Panchkula and, therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
