TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (7) TMI 461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (hereinafter referred to as M/s. MPP) (ii) M/s. Arihant Arts (hereinafter referred to M/s. AA) (iii) M/s. Ganga Packaging (hereinafter referred to as M/s. GP) (iv) Mr. Malsi Thawar Rita (v) Mr. Ramji Thawar Rita (vi) Smt. Maniben Malsi Rita (vii) Smt. Jayshree Ashok Rita (viii) Smt. Champaben Velaji Rita While MPP was declarant unit under the Central Excise Act & Rules, was enjoying the benefit of exemption on Printed Cartons, was managed by Mr. M.T. Rita, a partner, the two other firms, viz. M/s. AA and M/s. GP, operating from Mr. M.T. Rita's residence were floated to obtain in eligible exemption on cartons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f raw material transfers. (iii) Common advertisement in a school magazine for which payment was made by M/s. MPP. (c) The adjudicator relying upon Shree Agencies case [1977 (1) E.L.T. J168 (S.C.)] dropped the proposal of clubbing the clearances of M/s. GP with M/s. MPP after finding that Mr. Malsi T. Rita had not floated M/s. GP as dummy or camouflage unit for availing benefit of SSI Notification 1/93. (d) However, regarding the material on records as regards finance management control, mutuality on marketing, raw material, recommended plant and machinery and common advertisement, he found that M/s. MPP is the main unit. M/s AA is a dummy unit and therefore the turnover of M/s. MPP is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Circular dated 1-3-1956 and 6/92 dated 29-5-92 have not been applied by the adjudicator. The same was required to be considered as per this decision of the Apex Court. (b) Board's circular dated 1-3-56 and 6/92 dated 29-5-1992 were circulated as a Trade Notice No. 42/92, dated 24-9-1992 by the Office of same Commissioner, who has adjudicated the case. A perusal of these circulars and the learned Dy. Legal Advisors of Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs Union of India's advice dated 29-12-77 on which the Circulars and Trade Notice has been based and issued and is found to the effect - "2......... If there are two firms with only some of the parties in common, each firm is entitled to separate exemption lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing the decision in the case of 1944 (file) E.L.T. 725 (sic) Ashok Paper, 1997 (92) E.L.T. 502, H.T. Bhavnani Chand, 1994 (70) E.L.T. 273, Nikhildeep Cables, the demands cannot be upheld on grounds of limitations. (c) When clubbing of clearances as per the S. 37B orders of Board are not permissible, the duty demands made on M/s. MPP cannot be sustained. The same are required to be set aside. (d) When entitlement to SSI benefit separately granted to both firms i.e. M/s. MPP and M/s AA, the penal liability and that too in a consolidated manner, without arriving at a conclusion whether it is either on M/s. MPP or M/s. AA cannot be upheld. The order of penalty should in clear terms visit the person....