2001 (5) TMI 377

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unit M/s. Tenzing Transports (P) Ltd. Printing Division (TTPL) is a dummy unit created by M/s. K.A.A. Arunachalam Printing Division (KAAAPD) for the purpose of availing exemption under Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993. He has also charged that clearances of printed cartons as alleged in the Annexure-III was illicitly removed from KAAAPD. He has also upheld the charge of invocation of larger period and confirmed duty demands of Rs. 2,25,841/- for the period 21-8-93 to 25-12-93. There is a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each on M/s. KAAAPD under Rule 173Q and Rs. 5,000/- on M/s. TTPL under Rule 209A of C.E. Rules. Further penalty of Rs. 5,000/- each on Shri A. Tenzing, Director/Partner and Shri M. Rathinasamy, Supervisor has also been imposed.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ontended that inter-sale between the two units was at arm's length and there was no financial flow back. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner that there was control of production and sale is not found on any evidence. They further contended that the demands were time-barred and cannot be enforced as both the units were independent units. They have relied on the following judgment :- 1. 1994 (71) E.L.T. 689 (T) - Alpha Toya Ltd. 2. 1992 (62) E.L.T. 469 - Prabhat Dyes 3. 1991 (54) E.L.T. 333 - Spring Fresh Drinks 4 1991 (53) E.L.T. 152 (T) - Viomad Labs (P) Ltd. 5. 1989 (43) E.L.T. 327 (T) - Kinjal Electricals 6. 1993 (67) E.L.T. 712 - Shri Ranga Industries 7. 1987 (32) E.L.T. 204 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ence without any manufacturing facility or any registration and SSI certification, only then such a finding of dummy unit can be arrived at . In this case, as there were separate registrations and there was no flow back, the finding of dummy unit arrived at is not in keeping with the law laid down in the light of judgments cited. He sought for setting aside the order impugned. 6. On the other hand, ld. SDR defended the order on the basis of findings recorded by the Commissioner and about one of the Directors being partner in the new firm and also on the basis of new firm accepting orders from the manufacturer. He submits that there were transactions between these two units and since these were not genuine transactions, therefore he ....