TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to 31.12.2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, during the period under consideration, Shri Arun Agarwal is the Proprietor of M/s Mica Mold, which was engaged in the manufacture of electrical motor parts, generator fittings, such as, Brush Holder, BHRR Assembly, Hitachi Rocker Ring, Lead Wires etc. and insulating fitting for electrical appliances, such as, insulators, earth box assembly etc. for Indian Railways. Shri Arun Agarwal is having two sons, namely, Shri Rajiv Agarwal and Shri Harsh Agarwal, who after attaining the age of majority, have started independent firm, namely, M/s Mica Mold Pvt. Ltd., which was also engaged in the manufacture of same items, but at different business premises which is located about 2 kms. away fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l of the material available on record, we find that an identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of DM Gears (P) Ltd. Vs CCE&ST, Delhi, [2007] 79 taxmann.com 307 (New Delhi CESTAT), wherein it was observed that : "7. First, we examine the question whether sales made by DMGP to DDIL are entitled to the SSI benefit. It is not in dispute that both these entities have separate registered manufacturing premises. It is nobody s case that there are no equipments in either of the premises and it is also not the view taken by the Revenue that the entire manufacturing happened at one of the two premises and the other is a dummy one. Inasmuch as both the units have separate manufacturing premises with equipments and the fact that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it may be mentioned that similar views were expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Deep Cabletronics vs CCE, Delhi [Excise Appeal No. 52010 of 2015], wherein it was observed that : "6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. From the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner vs Anil Pumps (P) Ltd. (supra) as well as by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CCE vs Minimax Industries, 2011 (269) ELT 166 (Del), it is evident that the brand name can be utilized by the family members. Similar views were expressed by the Tribunal in the case of CCE&C, Aurangabad vs Jain Spices & Agro Products, 2011 (273) ELT 135 (Tri.-Mumbai).........." 7. In the instant case, both the business entities are differ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthority to decide this issue de novo but by providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee-Appellants to present their case with liberty to file additional documents, if any, as per law. 11. Another grievance of the assessee-Appellants is regarding the inclusion of inspection charges paid by the Indian Railways to RITES Ltd. for inspecting the goods supplied by M/s Mica Mold and M/s Mica Mold Pvt. Ltd. 12. The learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants submits that since the charges were paid by the Indian Railways, the same cannot be included in the sale price of the items as no bills were ever raised by them to this effect. 13. After considering the rival submissions, it may be mentioned that the assessee-Appellants have neither ra....