TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (4) TMI 355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and using the machines belonging to Party No. 1 and that, therefore, they were more than one manufacturer in the same factory premises. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur in the impugned order held the charges against appellants as established; imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on Party No. 1 for violation Rule 44(3) of Central Excise Rules read with KJ Rule 210, and a penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- on Party No. 2 under Rule 173Q. The Commissioner of Central Excise demanded duty of Rs. 2,13,857.30 relating to clearances of Party No. 2 during the financial years 1982-83, 1983-84 and on 3463 pieces of Crank shafts held to have been clandestinely removed. The Commissioner of Central Excise further confiscated 159 pieces Crank shafts seized ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in respect of Party No. 1 which were dated 25-1-1980 and 15-9-1980 when some alterations were made. The Commissioner of Central Excise in his order has compared these with the ground plan said to have been filed on 16-2-1983 and has observed that the site plan remains same as the ones approved earlier, barring the portion comprising of a factory shed in occupation of Party No.2. But the Commissioner of Central Excise still found it objectionable that the units were enclosed within the same boundary wall of Party No. 1. This, it is fE.L.T., is but a technical objection when it is found on evidence that the Party No. 2 had acquired its own machinery for Crank shaft guiding and was in occupation of not the same factory building as Party No. ....