2008 (2) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m, while Mr. M.B. Wagh, his brother-in-law, was the partner of M/s. Parkman Shivdurga Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as "PSDE") which, the department alleged, had been created as a dummy by PPI for the purpose of availment of inadmissible SSI exemption separately by suppressing the fact of non-production of goods by PSDE. The benefit of SSI exemption Notification 16/97 claimed by PSDE was held to be not available to them and it was held that the clearances of PSDE were in fact the clearances of PPI and since the value of the clearances by PPI exceeded the ceiling limit prescribed in the relevant notification in force during the period in dispute, show cause notices covering the period from April, 1994 to December, 1997 and January, 19....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e sheet of PSDE; (f) Raw material of PSDE was directly received by PPI from the suppliers and finished products were processed and directly dispatched to customers of PSDE and it was only on paper that the raw material was sent for job work to PPI and credit was taken by PSDE; (g) Mr. Kantak had stated that after the manufacture, they packed the finished products after labelling on the surface and they were embossing their name Parkman on the product - the goods of PPI were branded and PSDE had also manufactured and supplied similar goods with similar brand names to different suppliers; (h) Electricity charges for mixing machine installed at PPI was not shared by PSDE; (i) There was financial interlinking of a nature other than ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....had not been used for years together by PSDE. The providing of an interest free loan to PSDE by one of the partners of PPI will not affect the independent existence of PSDE in the light of the fact that PSDE had its own factory and machinery. The issue of brand name was not raised either in the show cause notice or in the order-in-original and hence cannot be relied upon by the Revenue at this stage. Independent existence of PSDE is also not affected by rendering of personal assistance to it by a partner of PPI. The closeness of relation ship or the fact of one partner being common will not make PSDE a dummy of PPI when both are separate legal entities having plant, machinery, workmen, power connection etc. We further find that the dispute ....