TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (7) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were served a notice dtd. NIL October, 98 as to why - (a) Duty of Rs. 26,74,788 for the period should not be demanded and recovered from them for the period April, 94 to October, 97 by clubbing the clearances of other five units viz. (i) Universal Construction Equipments Co. (hereinafter referred to as UCEC for short) (ii) Universal Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as UE for short) (iii) Universal Engineering Company (UEC) (iv) Mata Traders (hereinafter referred to as MT for short) (v) RHM are Construction Equipment Pvt. Ltd. (RHMCE for short) (b) Differential duty of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against this order. 2.1 After hearing both sides and considering the issue it is found (a) Out of the suspect seven other companies of the group, as investigated, production only five were found by the earlier order of the Commissioner to be liable to be clubbed with UI & by the second Commissioner one more unit was found to be independent. This would knock down the basis of the departments view of a 'More Group' to be accepted entity. (b) The show cause notice admits. (i) UI to be proprietory concern of R.H. More started in 1982 & had obtained a registration. (ii) UE the proprietory concern of Shri R.R. More was in exi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 3950/135 Warje 4 Mata Traders (MT) Partnership of Shri R.H. More & R.R. More 1994 to Dec., 96 S. No. 1099/135 Warje 5 R.H. More Constr. Pvt. Ltd. (RHMCEPL) Pvt. Ltd. Co. Oct., 96 to Sept., 97 S. No. 3949/135 Warje 6 Universal Engg. Co. (UEC) Proprietary of Ms. D.R. More May, 95 to Jan., 97 S. No. 459/4/135 Warje 7 R.A. Engg. (RAE) Partnership of Shri R.H. More & R.R. More Aug., 96 till date S. No. 325 Village Sangvi, Tal Khandala dist. Satara 8 Universal Sales Corpn. (USIC) (Trading firm) Proprietary of Shri A.R. More April, 97 till date S. No. 17 Warje While the Commissioner in the order dated 10-2-99, found UE to be a partnership of R.H. More & R.R. More & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces and technical know how, etc". (Emphasis supplied) While no such finding as emphasized herein above are found for other units either both the Commissioners are universally Male chauvinists & highly gender biased to arrive at almost identical reason to doubt the entrepreneurial ship of Ms. Deepal R. More, because she is a woman, or the Commissioner in the fresh adjudication has not applied his mind afresh. Either way, such order now impugned before us cannot be held to be an outcome of an unbiased fresh application of mind in remand. It has only packed the ingredients of an earlier quashed order in a new bottle. We do not and cannot uphold such efforts especially when they emerge out of gender bias. (c) &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y cannot lead to the only conclusion that there were devices to evade tax. The fact & functioning in Para 25 of the impugned order to the effect that turnover of M/s. R.A. Engineering a partnership firm of R.R. More & R.H. More started in 1996 cannot be clubbed with turnover of UI since that firm on crossing the turnover has started paying duty should have cleared the clouds of suspicion in the departments mind of units being erected only to evade. If that was so R.A. Engineering of same father & son partnership should have been dissolved before crossing the exemption threshold. The fact that it has not so, itself would place the reasons for the efforts of various assesses and Shri R.H. More individually to strive for the growth & the abort....