TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (11) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (for short 'the Tribunal') in Appeal Nos. E/530, 531, 532 & 533/04-Mum., revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 35-L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act'). 2.The point involved in this case is regarding clubbing and clandestine removal. The clubbing is proposed in the case of following four units: "(i)M/s. Sotex - a proprietary unit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, 1997 and pursuant to the enquiries made and statements recorded of the supervisors and Shri Majithia, a case was made out and accordingly a show cause notice dated 7-4-1998 was issued. The notice proposed that M/s. Sotex was the main unit and that other units were only name sake and were declared to be separate unit on papers. The notice relied upon: (i) common pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ginal. 6.Respondents produced audited accounts which were subject to statutory audit and income tax and other supporting documents to show that: "(a) Units are geographically apart, having their funding and financial arrangement; (b) They hold separate central excise registration, SSI registration and are assessed to income tax, sales tax and central excise separately. (c) They are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct. (j) They have their own separate supervisors and own separate labour." 7.The Tribunal after discussing the material on record came to a finding that all these units were separate and had no interconnectivity for being clubbed. A further finding was recorded that there was no clandestine removal. On the question of extended period of limitation, Tribunal came to a finding that all....