TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 352
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner satisfies the court that there is a discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due deligence was not within the knowledge of or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made or that there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or review is necessary for any other sufficient reason. It is necessary to see whether the petitioners have made out any such case in these petitions. 3. Mr. Hidayatullah, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners submitted that judgment dated 28-1-2009 needs to be reviewed because there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Learned counsel drew our attention to Order dated 28-4-2005 passed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and made in the show cause notices upon all seven units and their partners or directors. The Supreme Court further observed that having regard to the Collector's conclusion that all units other than Gajanan Weaving Mills were fictitious units, the sequitur, one would have assumed could only be that it was Gajanan Weaving Mills which was the assessee and liable to satisfy the demand. The Supreme Court observed that by confirming the demand upon all the seven units the Collector appears, however, to have treated them all as assessees and, implicitly recognized their independent existence. The Supreme Court, therefore, remanded the matter to the Commissioner, Pune, to hear and decide the show cause notices afresh in the light of the law laid d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies and M/s. Harnik Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. thereby implicitly recognizing their independent existence by treating both of them as assessees, which is not correct. When M/s. Harnik Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. have been held to be dummy unit, the duty could have been demanded only from M/s. Harnik Food Industries, being the de facto and de jure manufacturer and not from M/s. Harnik Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. We modify the Commissioner's order to this extent". After so observing the Tribunal held that the duty demand confirmed by the Commissioner is payable by M/s. Harnik Food Industries only. 6. We are unable to read the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gajanan Fabrics case (supra) to mean that in every case the matter must be remanded and the remand must be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... v. Union of India [1993 (66) E.L.T. 375 (Raj.)] - Bentex Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi [2003 (151) E.L.T. 695 (Tri.-Del.) - Commissioner v. Bentex Industries [2004 (173) E.L.T. A79 (S.C.) - Meteor Satellite Ltd. v. Collector [1985 (22) E.L.T. 271] The property tax, water charges and other charges relating to the entire premises occupied by both the appellants are paid by the appellants Ms. Harnik Food Industries. - Vivomed Labs (P) Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex. [1991 (53) E.L.T. 152 (Tribunal)]. - Collector v. Vivomed Labs (P) Ltd. [1992 (62) E.L.T. A119 (S.C) - Pimpri Gases [1990 (49) E.L.T. 474] The office staff is common for both the appellants and their salary is paid by the appellants M/s. Harni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls of M/s. Harnik Food Industries were found stored. - Vivomed Labs (P) Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex. [1991 (53) E.L.T. 152 (Tribunal)]. - Collector v. Vivomed Labs (P) Ltd. [1992 (62) E.L.T. A119 (S.C.) -Meteor Satellite Ltd. v. Collector [1985 (22) E.L.T. 271] - Shree Packaging [1987 (32) E.L.T. 94]. Both the appellants were having common office in respect of the work of documentation Renu Tandon v. Union of India [1993 (66) E.L.T. 375 (Raj.)] - Vivomed Labs (P) Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex. [1991 (53) E.L.T. 152 (Tribunal)]. - Collector v. Vivomed Labs (P) Ltd. [1992 (62) E.L.T. A119 (S.C.) Meteor Satellite Ltd. v. Collector [1985 (22) E.L.T. 271 8. We have already noted the grounds on which an order can be reviewed. Assuming Mr. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r charges and other charges relating to the entire premises occupied by both the appellants are paid by the appellants M/s. Harnik Food Industries. As per the agreement, appellants M/s. Harnik Nutrients Private Limited were to share 2% of their turnover with M/s. Harnik Food Industries. The office staff is common for both the appellants and their salary is paid by the appellants M/s. Harnik Food Industries. The products of both the appellants are sold through a common marketing agent. Trademark "Harnik" belongs to M/s. Harnik Food Industries for which M/s. Harnik Nutrients Private Limited did not pay any royalty. Trademark "Harnik" is used by both the appellants. Both the appellants are controlled by Hingorani Family and, therefore, there i....