2018 (3) TMI 253

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../ fabrication of spares/ parts for heavy equipments and were availing the benefit of SSI exemption. M/s. Quality Engineering, another partnership firm was also engaged in manufacture of similar products. On the basis of intelligence that the appellant namely M/s. Thiraviam Engineering Works (herein after referred to as TEW) was indulging in evasion of central excise duty. The officers visited their premises and seized records. They found records pertaining to (i) Quality Engineering, Tuticorin, (ii) Power Spares, Tuticorin, (iii) Thiraviam Engineering Works, Tuticorin, (iv) Thiraviam Industries Suppliers, Tuticorin (v) Venkateswara Enterprises, Tuticorin, (vi) High Tech Fly Ash Pvt. Ltd. and (vii) New Tech Industries, Tuticorin in their pre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a separate show cause notice to the alleged dummy unit when it is established that all the clearances were made by TEW. He argued that once clearance of the two units are proposed to be clubbed together, then separate show cause notice has to be issued to the dummy unit putting them to notice why they should not be considered as a dummy unit. He relied upon the following decisions:- a. Unitech Containers P. Ltd. 2017 (358) ELT 99 (Del.) b. Sapna Engineering 2017 (350) ELT 506 (Bom.) c. Diamond Scaffolding 2011 (274) ELT 10 (Cal.) 4. The ld. AR Shri R.Subramaniyam reiterated the findings in the impugned order. With regard to the technical defect of non-issuance of show cause notice to the alleged dummy unit, he ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g adverse view against such party is not sustainable. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below: "5. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. Regarding the appeals by the assessee-appellant, we note that as correctly contested by the ld. consultant that, there is a serious legal infirmity in the proceedings concluded by the lower authorities. Admittedly, no notice was issued making allegation about the legal status of M/s.The Coastal Paper Packaging. The lower authorities held the said units as fictitious. Though the appellant strongly contested on merit and established the legal status and independence of M/s. The Coastal Paper Packaging, since no notice was issued to them, the whole proceedings are in ....