TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pharma Systems. Both the units have common corporate office and were availing value based exemption without obtaining central excise registration. That both the units were being run and managed by Shri L.B. Yadav and are utilizing common resources / man-power and also utilizing each others funds as per their convenience. The goods are manufactured and cleared by one company and the payments are received by other and vice-versa. That there is transfer of funds from one company to the other without charging any interest. Accordingly demands were proposed to be made against M/s Gaylord Engineers amounting to Rs. 23,22,248/- and education cess Rs. 36,386/- along with interest and to impose penalty u/s 11AC. In case of M/s Gaylord Pharma Systems, it was proposed to demand central excise duty of Rs. 7,53,529/- along with interest and penalty. Personal penalty was proposed against Shri L.B. Yadav, proprietor of M/s Gaylord Engineers and against Shri S.B. Yadav and Smt. Geeta Yadav, partners of M/s Gaylord Pharma Systems. The demands were confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The Respondents filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the demands and penalties. Hence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... levy of duty. He relies upon following judgments in support of his contention:- (i) CCE, Mumbai-V Vs JFoundation 2015 (324) ELT 422 (SC) (ii) Supreme Engineering Works Vs CCE, Pune 1996 (82) ELT 102 (T) (iii) Steel Weld (India) Vs CCE, Calcutta II (2003 (153) ELT 345 (Tri, Kol.) (iv) British Scaffolding India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Delhi 2014 (313) ELT 87 (Tri) (v) L.R. Industries Vs CCE, Pune 1999 (114) ELT 550 (Tri) (vi) CCE, Calcutta Vs Hindustan Bobbin Industries 1987 (30) ELT 315) (Tri) (vii) CCE, Delhi Vs Versus Evershine Engg.Works 2000 (125) ELT 1042 (Tri.) (viii) A.S. Vasan & Sons Vs Union of India 2009 (238) ELT 217 (Bom) 4. Shri M.H. Patil, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that raising separate demands against each of units itself shows that the Revenue considers both the units as separate entities and thus demands are not sustainable. He relies upon Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in case of M/s Gajanan Fabric Distributors Vs C.C. Pune 1997 (92) ELT 451 SC. He submits that Gaylordused by both the units is not a registered brand of either of the units but is part of their name and hence Hca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1997(92)ELT 451 SC , wherein it was held that - The order under appeal was passed by the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the show cause notices issued to the assessees (appellants) did not clearly indicate how the demands for excise duty had been worked out nor was there any indication of the source from which the figures had been compiled. The liability proposed to be fastened being large, it was found necessary to clearly indicate these details so that the assessees were in a position to meet the charge. The Tribunal, therefore, found sufficient ground to set aside the Collectors order under appeal before it insofar as the calculations of the demand for duty were concerned and refer the case back for fresh adjudication with a direction that the Collector would have the demand for duty calculated and the basis thereof indicated in proper detail to enable the assessees to meet the charge. At the same time, the Tribunal stated that it had rejected all other contentions of the assessees. 2.We find, after having heard learned counsel, that it is necessary to remand the matters to the Collector to consider the entire case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune (2005 (179) ELT 57 (Tri. Mumbai) wherein the assessee were manufacturing goods with the mark Pethe, which was a family name and other unit in the same group was also using the said name. Since, it was not a brand-name, SSI exemption was allowed. The reasoning that Shri L.B. Yadav is the proprietor of M/s Gaylord Engineers and as his wife and brother are partners of M/s Gaylord Pharma Systems cannot ipso-facto lead to the conclusion that both the units are owned by one family. The units are separately registered with Sales-tax, Income-tax, Municipal authorities, Director of Industries, Pollution Control Board, Service-tax and have separate electricity and telephone connections. It was also the contention of the Revenue that both the units have common corporate office, thus they are liable to be clubbed. We find that one is proprietorship concern and another is partnership firm and use of the words Corporate Office is thus not correct as none of the units is a company registered under the Companies Act. The sharing of common office by both the units cannot lead to a conclusion for clubbing the two units since no evidence has been brought on re....