TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (11) TMI 262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was filed on 21-1-1987. As it was not filed within the time-limit of three months, the present COD application was filed by the Revenue praying for condonation of delay in filing the supplementary Appeal. In similar cases, where the main appeals were filed within the statutory time-limit, but the supplementary appeals were filed after expiry of the three months' statutory time-limit, this Tribunal has been condoning the delay in filing the supplementary appeals. Following the consistent view taken in such matters, we condoned the delay in filing the supplementary appeal in this case. Thereafter, we heard both the appeals together. 2. By the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has set aside the order-in-original No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....02,002. M/s. Divyam Chemical Industries were set up in August, 1983 in the vicinity of the premises of M/s. Patco Chemical Industries. This unit filed a declaration on 28-4-1984 declaring the value of their clearances during 1983-84 to be Rs. 3,27,566.00. 4. During investigation of the case the Central Excise Officers recorded statements of partners of both the firms. In his statement recorded on 21-6-1984, Shri Vijaykumar Naginbhai Patel, Partner of Divyam Chemical Industries stated that Ball Mill/Pulveriser had not been installed in their factory, they were sending their semi-finished goods to M/s. Patco Chemical Industries for pulverising process - that their boiler was not in working condition and that they were taking steam through ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the two firms were members of the same family. The Department also found that as per log book of M/s. Divyam Chemical Industries, the production in the factory started on 23-12-1983 and therefore, a quantity of 22,470 Kgs. of activated carbon shown to have been manufactured during August 83 - 23-12-1983 could not be manufactured by that firm and the said quantity was obviously manufactured by M/s. Patco Chemical Industries, but shown to have been cleared in the invoices of M/s. Divyam Chemical Industries. Another quantity of 7640 Kgs. of activated carbon shown to have been sold to M/s. Patco Chemical Industries appeared to be in semi-finished condition and sold by the latter firm after carrying out the processes of washing, blending by ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion notification. The impugned order has been challenged by the Revenue in the two Appeals on the grounds that the respondents did not have complete machinery, technical know-how and the manpower to manufacture activated carbon falling under Tariff Item No. 68 and they were sending semi-finished goods to M/s. Patco Chemical Industries for further processing. In ground No. 2 of the appeal, the Revenue has stated that the log book maintenance by M/s. Divyam Chemical Industries showed that they started production from 23-12-1988. Therefore, the production of 22,470 Kgs. of activated carbon from 10-8-1983 to 23-12-1983 could not have been manufactured by them in the light of the above facts. In the third ground of the appeal, it is stated that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of M/s. Patco Chemical Industries. He, however, conceded that Collector (Appeals) had held that there was no suppression of facts and this finding had not been challenged in the ground of appeal, 8. In the show-cause notice and in the order of the Deputy Collector, various allegations have been discussed in details. We observed that the Collector (Appeals) has not discussed all those allegations and findings given by the Deputy Collector in the order-in-original. Collector (Appeals) clubbed together the clearances of the two firms taking into consideration certain aspects, but the most important point has been totally ignored by him. The point is that M/s. Divyam Chemical Industries did not have complete plant and machinery to manufactu....