TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and penalties were imposed under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on S/Shri Rajeev Tandon, Director of GDOL (appellant in E/660/2004), Vijaya Mathur, Director of M/s. Braun India (P) Ltd. (appellant in E/658/2004) and Ranjit Pratap, Director of Rialto Enterprises (P) Ltd. (appellant in E/659/2004). Under agreements entered into between M/s. GDOL and M/s. Rialto Enterprises (F) Ltd. IREPL, for short], the latter had manufactured a variety of excisable goods out of raw materials procured by themselves with the concurrence of M/s. GDOL, by using machinery maintained by themselves under a lease arrangement with M/s. Braun India (P) Ltd. [BIPL for short], and supplied such goods to M/s. GDOL, o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of duty of excise under statutory invoices. They also filed returns from time to time. The show-cause notice did not raise any objection with regard to these returns. The manufacture of the goods by M/s. REPL was out of raw materials procured by themselves. The capital goods used for the purpose was lawfully acquired by them under a lease agreement with M/s. BIPL. These facts are not in dispute. It appears from the impugned order that learned Commissioner found a 'master-hired labour' relation between M/s. GDOL and M/s. REPL, in one part of his order. In another part of his order, learned Commissioner considered M/s. REPL to be a 'shadow' of M/s. GDOL. In a third place, he called it a 'dummy' unit. A finding that M/s. RLPL was doing 'j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ever been an objection raised in respect thereof by the Revenue. It is also on record that the payment of duty by M/s. REPL was in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Ujagar Prints v. Union of India - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.) as clarified in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.). By accepting the assessments done by M/s. REPL, the Revenue was virtually recognizing them as a job worker in terms of Ujagar Prints (supra). If that be so, there is no question of dubbing them as shadow or dummy of anybody. Learned counsel has cited a similar case of M/s. Indian Shaving Products Ltd., who are said to be another subsidiary of M/s. Gillette India (P) Ltd. (holding-company). In this case, reported as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....GDOL. They did not supply any raw material or capital goods to M/s. REPL for the manufacture of the subject goods, nor did they provide work force for the purpose. Deputation of supervisors by them to the factory of M/s. REPL did not make any dent in the commercial nature of the transaction between the companies. M/s. GDOL had nothing to do with the lease arrangement between M/s. REPL and M/s. BIPL in respect of the capital goods. It was lawful for M/s. REPL to hire capital goods and use it for manufacturing excisable goods. That was precisely what they did in this case. Advancing of amounts, interest-free, by M/s. GDOL to M/s. REPL has also been satisfactorily explained by the appellants. The sale consideration payable by M/s. GDOL to M/s.....