TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (9) TMI 790
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... R.P. Polypack are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE laminated fabrics and HDPE sacks. Under a show cause notice dated 15-5-2001 it was proposed to club the value of clearances from the appellant's manufacturing unit with the value of sales of M/s. V.S. Polypack. It was alleged that M/s. Polypack which is also a partnership firm is a dummy of the appellant-firm. The allegation was that the partners of M/s. V.S. Polypack are partners in the appellant-firm, that V.S. Polypack has no working force, all its work was supervised and controlled by the common partners, that their records were maintained by one Shri Awasthi who is the authorised signatory of the appellant and that interest free loan was given by V.S. Polypack to the appellant. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it. Part of the loan was transferred to the appellant on their request as and when required by them and the rest was utilised by M/s. V.S. Polypack. All these transactions are covered by documents. The money taken as loan by the appellant from M/s. V.S. Polypack is shown as a liability in the appellant's balance-sheet. M/s. V.S. Polypack obtained registration from the Trade Tax Department on 11-12-98. It has a separate trading premises and having separate bank account also. M/s. V.S. Polypack purchased plastic granuels from their own fund and sent for job work to independent job workers outside Kanpur on their own challans and HDPE fabrics received after job work were sold on their bills to their customers. Job charges were paid by M/s. V.S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner are sufficient to prove that M/s. V.S. Polypack is a dummy unit of the appellant and its turnover should be taken into consideration in order to examine the question whether the appellant is entitled to benefit of SSI unit. 7. We find merit in the contention raised by the appellant that M/s. V.S. Polypack cannot be treated as a dummy unit of the appellant for the reasons referred in the show cause notice and relied on by the Commissioner. Merely for the reason that two of the partners in appellant-firm have formed V.S. Polypack and that there are loan transactions between the two firms, would not justify clubbing of the two units. In similar circumstances in the following cases the Tribunal has taken the view that clubbing will ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rupees 300 lakhs in the preceding financial year. The above would clearly show that for aggregating the value of clearances there should be either more than one factory or more than one manufacturer. In the present case, admittedly there is only one factory that is operated by the appellant. The allegation in the show cause notice itself would show that M/s. V.S. Polypack has no machinery and no power connection. Therefore, in the present case there is only one manufacturer, namely the appellant and only one factory, namely the factory operated by the appellant. Therefore, according to us, the conditions contained required in the notification for aggregating value are also not satisfied. 9. Yet another point to be considered is the ....