2016 (1) TMI 1332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Respondents : V. J. Sankaram, Advocate ORDER B. Ravichandran (Technical Member) These two appeals by the Revenue are against order dt. 21/08/2006 of Commissioner(Appeals-III), Hyderabad. The brief facts of the case are that consequent upon certain investigations conducted by the officers, proceedings were initiated against the respondents for denying the SSI exemption availed by them....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re some financial transactions which were not properly accounted for. He further submitted that the impugned order is not correct in concluding that the clearances of both the respondent units cannot be clubbed for the purpose of SSI exemption. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that both the appellants were separate legal entities as recognized by various Government departmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere is a repetition of the original allegations with no material evidence to contest the findings of the Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order. To club the turn-over of two units which are statutorily recognized by various Government authorities, evidences should have been put forth by the Revenue to the effect that one or other of these units is merely a dummy unit with no manufacturing fac....