9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellants are not contesting the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,81,223/-. In view of this the said demand of duty is upheld. 3. Learned Advocate mentioned that the appellants manufacture excisable goods falling under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that there is another unit functioning in the name and style of M/s. VME Foundary (Pvt.) Ltd. The department has made out a case that value of clearances of both the units is required to be clubbed for the purpose of levying the Central Excise duty; that an Order-in-Original No. 96/96, dated 22-6-96 was passed by the Commissioner confirming duty against them and imposing penalty; that on Appeal filed by the Appellants with Appellate Tribunal which vide Final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons are as under:- (1) Super Printers v. CCE, Hyderabad - 1987 (30) E.L.T. 745 (Tri.). (2) Swastika Metal Works v. CCE - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 320. (3) CCE v. Srinagar Cosmetic Ltd. - 1988 (35) E.L.T. 581. (4) Hindustan Foam Industries v. CCE - 1990 (48) E.L.T. 33 (Tri.). (5) International Dyestuff Manufacturing Co. v. CCE - 1991 (53) E.L.T. 85 (Tri.). 4. Countering the arguments, Shri A. Jayachandran, learned Departmental Representative, reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned order and submitted that one Shri Ravinder had floated both the units for the purpose of availing the exemption under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-86; that in such circumstances, question of issuing separate show cause notices does not arise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that they were only contesting the clubbing of two units and non-issue of show cause notice to one of the units which is a mandatory requirement. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions of both the sides, had set aside the said Order and remanded the matter for de novo consideration after following the principle of natural justice vide Final Order No. 1585/2001, dated 15-9-2001. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, has specifically mentioned in Para 22 that one of the submissions made by the Appellants was that the earlier order confirming the demand treating the units as one had been issued whereas notice has not been issued to the second unit. In the present impugned order the Commissioner had not considered it necess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce mentioned in the earlier Tribunal's Final Order dated 13-9-2001 that both units are situated at different premises having different small-scale Registration number, Central Excise registration number, GST registration, CST registration number and separate Income-tax PAN number. It has also been mentioned therein that they have been filing RT 12 returns which have been duly approved by the Department and both of them have discharged duty liability on the goods cleared by them during the financial year 1992-1993 and 1993-94. In view of these facts, non-issue of show cause notices to M/s. VME Foundary Pvt. Ltd. makes the proceedings assailable as the Department have not been given any opportunity of proving to them that they are not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
