1991 (9) TMI 177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ith common trade mark. They claimed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 individually. The Assistant Collector denied the aforesaid benefit stating that both the firms should be considered as a single unit when the clearances of both the units taken together exceeded Rs. 2 Crores for the financial year 1989-90 and hence they are not eligible for the benefit under Notification No. 175/86. The Asst. Collector had also ordered the demand of differential duty with reference to 15% ad valorem fixed by him while finalising the provisional assessments under Rule 9B. Hence the appeals. 3. Appellants contend, inter alia, as under :- (i) Both the firms have separate L. 4 Licence functioning separately and are separate legal entities. Both the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... carefully. The issue to be decided in this case is whether both the partnership firms with common partners are independent entities or are to be treated as a single manufacturer while deciding the eligibility for Notification No. 175/86. On examination of the order-in-original I find that Assistant Collector had based his decision mainly on the ratio of Quality Steel Industries v. CCE [1989 (43) E.L.T. 775 (Tri.)]. Unfortunately in this case the facts are altogether different. This is a case pertaining to proprietary firms one owned by the husband and the other owned by the wife who has executed a power of Attorney in favour of the husband and she did not know anything about the operations of the firm. Even the finances were by way of g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9-C.E. the clearances of two partnership firms having common partners cannot be clubbed together for determining the eligibility for exemption when Certificate for Registration, Partnership deeds, balance sheets and income tax assessments etc. indicate that the firms are two distinct legal entities. The CEGAT also held that commonness of the partners alone in two firms is not adequate ground to hold one of the units to be a dummy created to evade tax liability. In G.D. Industrial Engineers v. CCE [1983 (14) E.L.T. 1994 (CEGAT)], the CEGAT held that under the law of partnership (although each partner is an agent of all others) the partnership itself is distinct from its partners in terms of Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Acc....