2006 (2) TMI 684

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Shri R.S. Shanbhag's wife and son, are functioning at two nearby premises at B-35 & B-33, Girikunj Industrial Estate, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai. The learned Advocate for the appellants states that both the units manufacture similar articles of plastics from LDPE/HDPE granules. The process consists of pulverizing LDPE/HDPE in the unit of M/s. Shandar Products, which is sent for heating, moulding and packing to the unit of M/s. Sansuk. The learned Advocate challenges the clubbing of clearances for both units on the ground that the partnership firm is a different legal unit separate from a proprietary concern. We find that both the units have claimed SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The said Notification clearly ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the department supports the classification under Heading 85.07 and also refers to an earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Amrith Thermo Plastics v. CCE, Bangalore - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 151 (Tri.), which classified Vent Plugs designed for use in batteries under Heading 85.07 ruling out the classification under Chapter 39. 4. We find that the impugned battery parts in question are (a) Plastic Spill Proof Vent Plug, (b) Flame Retardant Microporous Vent Plug, (c) Ceramic Vent Plug, (d) Microporous Vent Plug, (e) Aqua Trap Vent Plug and (f) Microporous Filter disc. There is no dispute that these items are used in batteries as battery parts. The learned SDR points out that the statements recorded from the purchasers also support ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....astic articles, the demands cannot be confirmed involving longer period of five years. If it was only a question of declaration of wrong classification of the items, extended period cannot be applied. However, we find that the goods in these cases have not been correctly declared and hence, we are of the view that the longer period of limitation is applicable. 7. As regards the penalty imposed, we find that the adjudicating Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,75,488/- on M/s. Sansuk under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and in addition an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs on Shri R.S. Shanbhag. We are of the view that separate penalties are not warranted on the proprietary firm as well as on the proprietor. We also find tha....