1995 (10) TMI 123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....coolers, but  `creations' of the first appellant. He held the first appellant to be the manufacturer of all the goods. He consequently denied the benefit of Notification 80/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 for the year 1981-1982 and 1982-1983. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 30 Lakhs on the first appellant under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Shri V. Laxmi Kumaran, advocate explained that the technology for manufacture of the coolers had been obtained by the first appellant from Shri R. N. Kher under an agreement. It manufactured and cleared the goods in 1981-82 and 1982-83 after filing the declaration claiming the benefit of Notification 80/80. He said that the first appellant had entered into agreements with the other fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cording to which some of the facts mentioned by the Collector in his order, were sought to be rebutted as being erroneous. He pointed out that there is a series of case law to say that common management, common directors, common partners, common staff and telephone, sale to one person etc. could not justify the clubbing. He particularly relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the following cases : 1985 (22) E.L.T. 302 - UOI v. Cibatul Limited 1992 (43) ECR 233 = 1992 (62) E.L.T. 313 - Swastik Engg Works & Ors. v. C.C.E., Ahmedabad 1994 (71) E.L.T. 689 - Alpha Toyo Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi 1994 (51) ECR 363 - Elgi Tyre & Tread Ltd. & Ors. v. CCE, Coimbatore 1995 (75) E.L.T. 12 - Basant Industries v. CCE, Kanpur 3. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ial in the show cause notice and therefore cannot be relied upon for this conclusion. Each of the six appellants is a separate legal entity and separately registered with sales tax and income tax authorities. The fact that there may be some common directors is by itself is not sufficient to hold that each are not independent legal entities. 6. The question that now arises is therefore, whether the facts that the price of the coolers was fixed and most of the production supplied to the first appellant would by itself justify the conclusion that these five were dummy or artificial creations of the first appellant. The Supreme Court in the Cibatul Ltd. case has held that where, according to an agreement the goods have been produced by ....