1982 (4) TMI 279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....all of them. 2. The three appellants are common partners in two firms, namely Phoolan Agricultural Industries, Baraut (hereafter "P.A.I.") and Phoolan Foundary Works, Baraut (hereafter "P.F.W."). During the period from 1-3-1975 to 31-3-1978 these two firms manufactured A.D.V. (Animal Drawn Vehicles) wheels and axles under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff ("C.E.T."). They did not obtain a C.E. licence or observe the other formalities under Central Excise law. The firms also did not pay the duty leviable on their products during this period. The firms were requested by the jurisdictional Inspector to furnish certain information regarding their duty liability but they failed to do so. In the absence of information from the firms the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osed a personal penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs each on the three appellants. 6. At the personal hearing granted by the Board to the appellants on 24-4-1982, Shri R.K. Jain, Excise Consultant appeared on behalf of all the three appellants. 7. The Consultant submitted that P.A.I. and P.F.W. were registered separately under the Partnership Act, Income-tax Act and Sales Tax Act. 8. The goods produced were in the nature of agricultural implements exempted under Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975. 9. Moreover, the classification of the goods manufactured by these firms was pending in appeal before the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi and hence the Collector's order was without jurisdiction. 10. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mission had been made in view of the fact that the expression "from one or more factories" was not incorporated in the first proviso to Notification No. 176/77-C.E.. The productions of these two units can only be clubbed for the period from 18-6-1977 to 31-3-1978 in view of the specific provisions in the second proviso to the Notification. According to him the Collector has erred in treating the firms as one manufacturer though there were two different factories, registered separately with the Directorate of Industries, Income-tax and Sales Tax Department. 13. He cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Radhakrishnan and others (1979 SC 43 (STC)-4) and in the case of State of Punjab v. Jullu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e issue of the S.C.N. indicates that the Department was also treating the two concerns as separate entities. 20. Thus the Board observes that merely because the two concerns had common partners would not vitiate the position that these two concerns had separate existence and legal entities quite different from the partners of the two concerns who had also separate existence and legal entities of their own. 21. In these circumstances "PAI" and "PFW" had to be treated as separate "manufacturers" and their production or clearances could not be combined treating them as "by or on behalf of a manufacturer" for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 176/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 (as amended). 22. The Boards, however....