2017 (3) TMI 598

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....April 1991 to September 1997 in the order of original authority by clubbing of the clearances of M/s Mayur Printers, a proprietorship undertaking of Shri Satish D Prabhu, M/s Veer Offset, a partnership comprising his wife and brother and M/s SD Enterprises, a partnership comprising Shri Satish D Prabhu, as kartha of HUF, and his son coupled with denial of benefit available in notification no. 175/86-CE dated 1^st March 1986 and notification no. 1/93-CE dated 28^th February 1993, Revenue is in appeal. 2. It is contended in the grounds of appeal that emphasis has wrongly been placed on separate premises and of having been set up at different points in time instead of rendering a finding on the units being effectively under the control of S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Hon'ble Supreme Court should have been the ratio to be applied by first appellate authority. 3. Learned Authorized Representative placed the above cited decision before us. None appeared for respondent. We have, however, perused the memorandum of cross-objections filed on behalf of M/s Mayur Printers. 4. The said undertakings located at Royal Industrial Estate, but with different addresses, were all in the business of manufacturing printed cartons, covers, labels, stickers etc. While all three had punching machines, lamination facility was available only with M/s SD Enterprises and printing facility only in the other two units. Each of them had separate registration under different tax statutes and for regulatory compliance. 5.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o not need to examine the nature of relationship but merely ascertain if the grounds of appeal of Revenue are on firm foundations. Our scrutiny of the relationship and mutual undertaking of manufacturing process make it amply clear that these do not uphold the cause of Revenue. We take note that these units were not set up to cater to the framework prescribed in the exemption notification but at different points in time. We also note that these units, though functioning out of the same industrial estate, are, nevertheless, not in the same premises which could have been taken as a pointer to motivated structuring. 8. Revenue has not been able to adduce the manner in which the cited circular of Central Board of Excise & Customs has been mi....