2007 (8) TMI 221

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... proceedings with regard to the allegation of clubbing of clearances and clandestine removal of goods. The show cause notice had alleged that several units which were in existence were not separate and independent and they were functioning with common ownership and three units owned by Smt. Sudha Mittal, Shri Rohit Mittal and Shri S. P. Mittal were required to be clubbed together for the purpose of raising demands. The Commissioner after detailed scrutiny of the evidence on record held the units owned by these three persons as independent units and geographically situated away from each other. He found them to be independently registered with Sales Tax, Income Tax and Central Excise departments with separate bank accounts. He has confiscate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the party. 3. It is the contention of learned Counsel that the Larger Bench in the case of CCE, Mumbai Vs. AZO Dye Chem - 2000 (120) ELT 201 (Tri.-LB) in a similar situation held that subsequent appeals filed with an application for condonation of delay was dismissed on the ground that in an application filed under Section 35 E (4) of Central Excise Act 1944, the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay caused in filling the appeal beyond the period of three months allowed by that clause. 3.1 The learned Counsel also pointed out that the defect in not filing the appeals against all the appellants is incurable as the provisions for filing the appeal in the present case in terms of Section 35 E (1) is one year and that period has e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d as there was no clandestine removal or suppression of facts and that there was no creation of dummy units. The Commissioner after detailed examination of the matter accepted their pleas and dropped the proceedings. In the Review Order dated 24.2.2004, the prayer made is that there is non-application of mind with regard to scrutiny of documentary and material evidence on record, thereby the order is not sustainable. Two questions were framed in the reference order. (a) Whether, after taking into consideration the above facts in the Order-in-Original, the said order of Commissioner is legal and proper. (b) Whether, by an order passed under Section 35 C of Central Excise Act, 1944, the Hon'ble Tribunal should set aside the order passed....