9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the Orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue has preferred the present two appeals. 2. Vide the impugned Orders, Commissioner (Appeals) has held that M/s. Shakti Steel Pipes who are undertaking the galvanising process of M/s. Pipes manufactured by M/s. Shakti Tubes Ltd., are not required to pay any duty on the activity of galvanisation inasmuch as it is a settled law that gal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f an exemption and to avoid levy of Central Excise Duty and records and other clinching evidences show that in fact, two factories are one, then only one licence is required. Reference has also been made to the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Imex Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.EX. reported in 1998 (74) ECR 59 (CEGAT), wherein it was held that duty in respect of goods fabricated by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that till date, the respondents were paying the duty on the galvanisation. No allegations were made against the two Units being one and the same. In fact, separate registrations were granted to both the Units by their Central Excise Authorities. It is only when the respondent firm, M/s. Shakti Steel Pipes stopped payment of duty on the galvanisation process, the Revenue issued the show cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s such, it cannot be said that M/s. Shakti Steel Pipes were created with the sole intention of avoiding payment on the galvanisation process. Had that been so, the said Unit would not have paid duty on the galvanisation. The case-laws relied upon by the Revenue are not applicable to the facts of the case. In the first decision, two units were held to be one and the same on the basis of evidences o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
