Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the clearances of the three units were liable to be clubbed and the goods seized and penal action sustained on the ground that the units were not independent and had wrongly availed the small-scale exemption.
Analysis: The units were found to be run by members of the same family, manufacturing the same goods from a common premises with common facilities and office. The record showed that the units lacked real independent existence, that the arrangement was adopted to avail the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. unlawfully, and that the plea of separate registration, separate sales tax numbers and registration with the Registrar of Firms did not establish genuine independence. The statements recorded at the spot, read with the surrounding facts, supported the conclusion that the clearances were rightly clubbed and the seized goods were liable to confiscation. The cited decisions were held to be inapplicable on the facts.
Conclusion: The clubbing of clearances, confiscation of goods, duty demand and penalties were upheld against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: Separate registrations and nominal formalities do not prevent clubbing of clearances where different units are one family-controlled manufacturing concern using common facilities to evade duty and wrongly claim exemption.