2015 (5) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri Gautam Gupta and Mrs. Neera Gupta. The appellant have rented a part of their plot of the factory to M/s Macawber Beekay Pvt. Ltd. (MBPL). MBPL is also a Private limited company with several Directors of which two Directors Shri Ajay Kumar and Shri Rohit Kumar are also the Directors of the appellant Company. The other Directors of MBPL are different. MBPL manufacture "dense phase pneumatic conveyor system". During the period of dispute i.e. 2002 to 2005 both the units were availing SSI exemption separately. The department's case against the Appellant company is that of in the holding company of MBPL and hence their clearances are to be clubbed and if the clearances of the two units are clubbed, the appellant would not be eligible for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....07.02.2006 dismissed the appeal against which this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate the ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the SSI exemption Notification provides that when a manufacturer availing the benefit of SSI Notification owns some other manufacturing units also, for the purpose of determining his eligibility of this exemption and quantum of exemption, the clearance of all the units have to be clubbed together, that according to the Department, MBPL is a subsidiary company of the appellant and mainly on this ground the clearances of the two units are sought to be clubbed, that the appellant for being treated as "holding company" of MBPL must be, as per the Provisions of secti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the duty demand has been raised, had become known to the Department in the course of audit of their records in January, 2003 and all the information sought by the Department had been furnished by the appellant in April, 2004 and, therefore, there is no justification for invoking longer limitation period under proviso to section 11 A(1) and for the same reason there would not be no justification for imposing penalty on the appellant company under section 11AC. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. Shri R K Grover, the ld. DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in it. He also cited the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, New Delhi vs. Modi Alkali....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... independently availing the SSI exemption. The SSI exemption is sought to be denied to the appellant company by clubbing its clearances with the clearances of MBPL. In this regard, the Department relies upon the following evidence; (1) the Directors of the appellant company, Shri Ajay Kumar, Shri.Rohit Kumar, Shri Gautam Gupta and Mrs. Neera Gupta have 53.85% of share holding in MBPL; (2) Both the companies have their registered offices located at the same address i.e. L-8, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110006; (3) There are two common Directors, Shri Ajay Kumar and Shri Rohit Kumar; (4) 11 equity shareholders of the appellant company have shareholding in MBPL and (5) As per the annual reports of MBPL for the year 2001-02 and subsequent f....