TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (9) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner (Appeals) vacating a demand of duty raised on the respondents by the original authority. The respondents, during the material period, were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and clearance thereof under the brand name "Butterfly". A sister concern of the respondents was also engaged in like activity. Both were SSI units. The original authority found that Butterfuly was a common b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot to be clubbed; (b) Clubbing would be occasioned only in respect of clearances effected by a single manufacturer from one or more factories or by one or more manufacturers from the same factory; this condition was not satisfied in the present case; (c) Clubbing was not warranted merely because the partners/directors of the two units were closely related; (d) The department could not establish th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raised by the appellant is squarely based on clubbing of clearances of the respondents with those of their sister unit. It is not in dispute that brandname belonged to the respondents and that no part of the demand raised by appellant is based on para 5 of Notification No. 8/98-CE ibid, which barred availment of exemption by an SSI unit in respect of the goods cleared under another person's brandn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrelevant to the issue in this case. It is not the case of the Revenue that the respondents arid their sister unit were manufacturing their products by using common machinery, common labour or the like. It is on record that the two units were working separately with separate plant & machinery, separate labour force, separate energy source and even under separate registration with the department. N....