2006 (7) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by M/s. Ranveer & Co. with the clearances of goods by the respondents, on the ground that the former unit had been created as a dummy for the latter, and the above demand was raised on the goods cleared in excess of the aggregate clearance limit prescribed under the relevant SSI notification. The authority also imposed penalties on the assessee under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, besides a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on M/s. Ranveer & Co. under Rule 209A. Aggrieved by the Deputy Commissioner's order, both the parties preferred appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by M/s. National Adhesive & Chemicals (respondents herein) was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy. Hence   the present appeal of the Department. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts submits that, in the absence of finding of common funding and financial flowback, all those findings of the original authority would not call for clubbing of clearances between the respondents and M/s. Ranveer & Co. Reliance is placed on the Rajasthan High Court's judgement in the case of Renu Tandon v. Union of India - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 375 (Raj.), wherein it had been held that clearances of goods manufactured by two units in the same premises, having commonalities in respect of management, labour, electric connection, etc. could not be clubbed in the absence of evidence of common funding and financial flowback. It is submitted that, in the instant case, there was not even an allegation in the show cause notice that there was common fund....