2015 (7) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... penalty imposed on both the Applicants, in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. At the outset, ld. Advocate for the Applicants submits that the demand is confirmed against both the Applicants for the period from February, 2000 to March, 2005, by clubbing the clearances of each of the Applicants for the respective years, considering both these Units are one and the same; also without extending SSI Exemption Notification No.08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. It is his submission that by confirming the demand against both the Units, the ld. Adjudicating Authority had acknowledged the fact that both these Units were in existence de facto and also in law. 3. He has submitted that the Applicants were engaged in cutting and print....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, 2005(188)ELT 149(SC) and of this Tribunal in the case of Web Impression (I) (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Calcutta-I, 2010 (257) ELT 568 (Tri.-Kol,). Further, he has submitted that the demand has been confirmed, taking into consideration three show cause notices issued for the aforesaid period. It is his submission that extended period of limitation has been invoked in all the three show cause notices. The ld. Advocate submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory vs. CCE, 2008 (9) STR 314 (SC), the second and third show cause notices involving the same issue for the extended period, are barre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation of their eligibility to the benefit of SSI Exemption Notification. The Applicant vehemently argued that both these Units are separate in law and also in fact; hence, clubbing the clearance of these Units, is incorrect. Also, the grievance of the Applicants is that no detailed finding about their inter-se relationship had been recorded in the impugned Order, but the ld. Commissioner on the basis of an earlier Order, had concluded that the relationship between these two Applicants, were not at arm's length, and consequently, inferred that both these Units are one and the same. Also, it is argued by the ld. Advocate for the Applicants that the second and third show cause notices issued to them, invoking extended period, are barred by....