TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 779
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....VI/2000 dated 28.07.2000 upholding the Order-in-Original No. DSN/22/99 dated 15.10.1999 confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 12,10,468/- against M/s Shreeram Engineering Works proprietary firm of Ms. Deepali T. Musale and equal penalty amounting to Rs. 12,10,468/- and penalties against rest of the appellants. 2. The facts of the case are that the proprietary firms were manufacturing parts and spare parts required for refrigerators and supplying it to independent buyer, M/s Voltas Ltd. the said firms are different legal entities having separate sets of machineries and Sales Tax registrations and Income Tax registrations. The details of these firms are under: M/s Shreeram Engineering Works proprietary firm of Ms. Deepali T. Musale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayment of excise duty as Small Scale Units. They had initially claimed the said benefit under SSI Exemption Notification No. 1/1993 as amended but subsequently realized that they are entitled for exemption under Notification No. 75/1987 dated 01.03.1987 which is specifically applicable to the products manufactured by the appellants i.e. parts of refrigerator and air conditioners, if produced by small scale units. 4. The department issued show-cause notice denying the benefit of exemption notification to the appellants by clubbing the aggregate value of clearances of the aforesaid legal entities on the following grounds:- (a) The proprietor of M/s Shreeram Engineering Works and M/s Megha Engineering Corporation are sisters and one of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts also. 7. Further learned Counsel contended and placed reliance on the judgments in support of their contentions which in brief are as under:- (a) On the basis of, the clubbing of turnover of three independent units, even though owners are related are not sustainable in the light of following judgments: (i) Renu Tandon Vs. Union of India - 1993 (66) ELT 375 (Raj.) (ii) CCE, Pune-III Vs. Poona Radiators and Oil Coolers - 2017 (347) ELT 320 (Tri.-Mum) (iii) CCE, Mumbai-I Vs. Mayur Painters - 2017 (349) ELT 336 (Tri- Mum.) (iv) CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Suchita Steels (India) Ltd. - 2015 (327) ELT 378 (Tri.-Del.) (b) The interest free loan for short term by one unit to another unit does not constitute m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same and were informed and thus it was in knowledge of the department. Therefore the demand is barred by limitation in the light of following judgments: (i) R Venkatachalam Vs. CCE, Chennai - 2000 (115) ELT 192 (Tri) Affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court - 2000 (118) ELT A242 (SC) (ii) CCE, Chennai-III Vs. Ranka Wires Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (322) ELT 410 (SC) (iii) Ranka Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai - 2005 (187) ELT 374 (Tri.-Chennai) (iv) CCE, Vishakhapatnam-I Vs. Vizag Poly Packaging Industries - 2017 (347) ELT 506 (Tri. Hyd.) (v) CCE Jalandhar Vs. Zoloto Malleables - 2012 (284) ELT 523 (Tri.- Del.) (vi) CCE&C, Surat-I Vs. Vishal Texturising (P) Ltd. - 2009 (238) ELT 746 (Guj.) (vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....legal entities having independent existence and different locations with separate infrastructure. 13. The one time temporary loan transaction between partnership firm and the proprietary firm does not constitute mutuality of funds so as to club the value of clearances to deny the benefit of exemption notification. We find even though the owners are related but there is no mutuality of interest in the working of three firms and we find that the appellants case are covered by the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Renu Tandon Vs. Union of India as well as this Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Pune-III Vs. Poona Radiators and Oil Coolers, CCE, Mumbai-I Vs. Mayur Painters, M/s Nuaire Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC....