TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (1) TMI 172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y appeal as the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority had disposed of two appeals. Now that Shri Pochkhanawala Advocate for the respondent has come all the way from Bombay it is not considered prudent to adjourn hearing of the appeal on this count. Shri Chakraborty may file supplementary appeal along formal application for condonation of delay today itself. Shri Pochkhanawala says that he would not oppose the application for condonation of delay in the said supplementary appeal. Parties also agree that the supplementary appeal as and when filed may be disposed of on the strength of arguments advanced during hearing of this appeal and on the same lines as the present appeal. Argument heard. Appeal dismissed. Reasoned orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee concerns. It was further alleged that the goods manufactured by all the aforementioned four concerns including that of the respondent company were marketed under the common brand name 'Shingar'. In view of the commonalty of brand name of various products manufactured by the aforesaid four concerns, it was alleged as to why the clearances of all the four units should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the aggregate value and reject the exemption claimed by the respondent company under Notification No. 89/79, dt. 1.3.79 and 71/78. These allegations were upheld by the Assistant Collector in his order, dated 4.10.80 denying exemption to the products above claimed by the respondent herein under two separate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on interest between the respondent company and the other three concerns stated in the show cause notices; nor is the respondent company is a dummy company of the other three units. It is a distinct legal entity carrying on business on its own account and is not controlled by any other unit. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), therefore, held that the respondent company was eligible to the Notificiations No. 89/79 and 71/78 respectively. The Collector of Central Excise of Bombay-I has now filed the two appeals on the ground that the Collector (Appeals) has based his order merely on a few Court judgments and those of the Tribunal without apreciating the facts stated in the order of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise which have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... connected with one another and therefore, their clearances could be clubbed. For this proposition, the learned advocate has relied upon Tribunal's decision in the case of Shree Packaging Corporation, Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad [1987 (32) E.L.T. 94 (Trib)]. Same decision was also relied upon by the learned advocate for another ground i.e. employment of work force of one firm in another. The Tribunal has held that the aforesaid factors by themselves cannot lead to the conclusion that such units are connected unless there is evidence to the effect that there is a common funding or financial flow back from one unit to another. Learned advocate has also relied upon Tribunal's decision in the case of Bhagwan Das Kanodia ....