TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 525
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pick-N-Span Steel Wools (P) Ltd., (ii) Stewools India (P) Ltd., (iii) Handy Wires Pvt. Ltd., and (iv) Handy Products India. While the first three are private limited companies, the last one is a partnership firm. M/s. Spick-N-Span Steel Wools (P) Ltd., and Stewools India Pvt. Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of steelwool falling under Chapter 73, Handy Wires Pvt. Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of steel wire falling under Chapter 72 and the Handy Products India are engaged in the manufacture of corrugated wire nail/steel fibres falling under Chapter 73. The directors of Spick-N-Span Steel Wools (P) Ltd. are Smt. Annahita Shiraz Doongaji, Mr. Jehangir K. Doongaji and Mrs. S.H.Sethna. The directors of Stewools India (P) Ltd. are Mr. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of excisable goods effected during the period from 2004-2005 issued to Stewools India (P) Ltd. 2.3 The show-cause notice also proposed to recover interest on the duty short paid under Section 11AB of the Act and to impose penalty on Shri Jehangir K. Doongaji, who is the director of Spick-N-Span Steel Wools (P) Ltd., and partner of Handy Products India and also Shri Shiraz K. Doongaji, who is the partner of Handy Products India under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. 2.4 The grounds alleged in the show-cause notice is that all the four companies are interconnected undertakings as per Rule 2(g) of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 and they are related companies as per Section 40A(2)(B) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2002. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri Shiraz K. Doongaji, partner of Handy Products under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants are in appeal before us against the said order. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellants submit that all the four companies i.e., three private limited companies and one partnership firm are separate manufacturers having independent and separate manufacturing facilities and they are also registered separately with all government and quasi government authorities. Neither in the show-cause notice nor in the order is there any finding that any of the companies is a dummy company for the others. The ld. Counsel also submits that merely because the companies are related persons as per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....295 (Tri. - Del.) (d) Universal Industries v. C.C.E. - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 200 (Tri. - Bang.) (e) Studioline Interior Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bangaloe - 2006 (201) E.L.T. 250 (Tri. - Bang.) (f) Gajanan Fabrics Distributors v. C.C.E., Pune - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 451 (S.C.) (g) Rupani Textile Industries v. C.C.E., Mum - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 946 (Tri.) (h) Universal Industries v. C.C.E. - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 704 (i) Rao Industries v. C.C.E. - 2009 (237) E.L.T. 128 (Tri. - Bang.) (j) Jindal Steel Fabricators v. C.C.E. - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 238 (T) (k) Unity Industries v. C.C.E. - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 314 (Tri. - Mum.) (l) C.C.E. v. Sotex - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) (m) C.C.E. v. Shiva Exim Enterprises - 2005 (185) E.L.T. 169....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1992 had communicated an order issued by them under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act clarifying the position in the context of SSI exemption, which reads as follows : "In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 37-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for the purpose of ensuring uniformity of levy of duties of excise the Central Board of Excise & Customs has ordered that the following general principles will be applicable to Notification No. 175/86-C.E. :- (i) The question whether different partnerships having common partners are treatable as separate manufacturers or the same manufacturer, would be a question of fact in each case to be determined on the basis of such factors among other, like composition of the partnership, ....