TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs.7,46,632.87 (Rupees seven lakh forty-six thousand six hundred and thirty-two and paise eighty-seven) towards duty against the Appellant No. (1) and an amount of Rs. 40,000.00 (Rupees forty thousand) deposited by the Appellant No.(2) towards security for provisional release of the seized goods, was appropriated. Also penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh) was imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the Appellant No.(1). The proceeding was initiated by a show-cause notice dated 25-1-93 making following allegations: (i) The Appellant No.1 had floated a dummy unit under the name and style of Cent-Axia Flow (P) Ltd. (Appellant No. 2 herein) having all controls, managerial, operational and financial over the said dum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oing so, learned Authority framed the issue as under "Whether M/s. Suburban Industrial Works (lessee), referred to in these proceedings as SIWL and M/s. Cent Axia Air Flow (P) Ltd., referred to in these proceedings as CA can be clubbed together as far as the removals of the manufactured excisable goods are concerned." 3. Learned Authorities below lifted the coporate veil of the Appellant No. (1) and found that the Appellant No. (2) being the shadow without substance was a dummy unit of the Appellant No. (1) for the reason that the statements recorded in the course of enquiry revealed absolute control by the Appellant No. (1) over the Appellant No. (2). Relevant portion of the statement that received close consideration of learned Firs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. (2), for which he was paid by the Appellant No. (1). It was stated by Shri A.K. Nemani that he used to ask for blank letterheads of their customers for preparation of order and for avoiding Excise Law complications. 4. Learned First Appellate Authority observed that in the course of hearing, the Appellants failed to bring any cogent or credible evidence to contradict the statements recorded from Shri A.K. Nemani, Shri Sanjib Nandy and Shri Prasanta Mukherjee. Shrimati Anju Nemani and Shrimati Prova Nemani who are the Directors of the Appellant No. (2), were housewives and were not at all looking after business of that Appellant. Learned Authority also relied on the statement of Shri A.K. Nemani who stated that he and his brother, Shr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustrial Departments, Authorities under Factories Act as well as by PP Authorities, their basic structures were not liable to be demolished by any stretch of imagination, without full proof of being one and the same. The proceeding was barred by limitation being related to the period from April, 1988 to 8-12-1992, for issuance of the show-cause notice on 25-1-93. Entire facts being borne by record of learned Authorities below, denial of SSI exemption benefit was uncalled for and clubbing of clearances was unwarranted. He submitted a list of dates showing consequences of the evolution of the case. He, further, submitted that the fact that there was a trading activity being carried out and that was within the knowledge of the Department shall ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edd. v. Limca Flavr & Fragr; (l) 2006 (196) E.L.T. 173 (Tri. - Mum) - CCE & Cus, Ahmedd v. Vimal Deterg. Cakes; (m) 2006(195) E.L.T. 78 (Tri. - Mum) - Releef Pharmaceuticals v. CCE, Aurangabad; (n) 2006 (193) E.L.T 314 (Tri. - Mum) - Unity Industries v. CCE, Vadodara II; (o) 2005 (189) E.L.T 351 (Tri. - Del) - CCE, Indore v. Gilt Pack Ltd.; (p) 2005 (187) E.L.T. 45 (Tri. - Chennai) - Sri Nataraj Indus. v. CCE, Salem; (q) 2005 (185) E.L.T. 257(Tri. - Del) - Unicure Remedies v. CCE, Vadodara; (r) 2005 (183) E.L.T. 270 (Tri. - Mum) - Aspi Casting v. CCE, Surat; (s) 2005 (182) E.L.T. 225 (Tri. - Mum) - Damnet Chemicals v. CCE, Mumbai; (t) 2004(174) E.L.T. 335(Tri. - Mum) - CCE, Ahmedd. v. Madhusudan Chem. Indus. 7.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llate Authority below, the Appellants merely cried that they are not liable for clubbing of clearances. However, on proper consideration of the facts and evidence guided by Apex Court judgment cited by Revenue, we were of the view that governing facts and attendant circumstances proved close and proximate connection with a good degree of intimacy as well as nexus of both the Appellants warranting lifting of corporate veil and on doing so, the case appears to be a case of shadow without a substance and the Principal Appellant i.e. the Appellant No. (1) for its own convenience floated the Appellant No. (2), calling for clubbing of clearances and denial of SSI exemption. 8.2 Nothing could be demonstrated by the Appellants in the course of h....