TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns decision, emphasizes separate entities, case remanded for further examination</h1> The tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision confirming the demand of duty and imposing penalties on three separate units, emphasizing their ... SSI exemption - clubbing of clearances - denial on the ground that all the three units were managed by one Shri Kishore Hansraj Salia - As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of Gajanan Fabrics Distributors [1997 (5) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], it was held that if the units have been recognized as separate entities then it cannot be clubbed - Held that: - three units do not appear to be a proprietorship firm of one Shri Kishore H Salia. However, the aspect of the status of the individual unit has not been dealt by the original authority, which is very vital to arrive at a conclusion whether all the three units can be clubbed or not. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter needs reconsideration, in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement of Gajanan Fabrics Distributors and on the facts of the ownership of all the three units - appeal disposed off - matter on remand. Issues: Clubbing of three units for SSI exemption denial, demand confirmation, and penalty imposition.In the present case, the issue revolved around the clubbing of three units, namely Kitkat Apparels, Kitkat Fashions, and Kiddu Fashions, for the purpose of denying Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption, confirming the demand of duty, and imposing penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties against all three units, leading the appellants to appeal before the tribunal.The appellant argued that the demand was not maintainable as it was confirmed against all three units and penalties were separately imposed on each unit, which the appellant contended was impermissible based on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Gajanan Fabrics Distributors. The appellant asserted that the three units were distinct entities with separate ownership structures, including proprietorship, Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), and a partnership firm. The appellant emphasized that there was no evidence of fund flow between the units, indicating a lack of mutual interest and justifying the units' independence.On the other hand, the Revenue representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the confirmation of demand and penalties against all three units. After considering both sides' submissions and reviewing the records, the tribunal found that the demand was indeed confirmed on all three units, indicating their independent status. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Gajanan Fabrics Distributors, the tribunal highlighted the importance of recognizing units as separate entities to prevent their clubbing. The tribunal noted the different ownership structures of the units and the lack of evidence supporting the claim that they were all under the proprietorship of one individual.Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the matter required further examination in light of the Supreme Court's judgment and the ownership details of the three units. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the original authority for a fresh decision considering the observations made regarding the ownership status of the units.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
