2009 (6) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Mr. Kedar Wagle for the respondents. [Judgment: per J. H. BHATIA, J.] - Though several questions have been stated as questions of law in this Appeal, the learned Senior Counsel conceded that only following question will be pressed by the Revenue : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order of the Tribunal is perverse as the same is contrary to the eviden....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stries entitled to similar benefits in respect of clearance of goods for first Rs.30 lakh. 3. On behalf of the Revenue, it was contended that the respondent No.2 is only a dummy unit of respondent No.1 and collectively they had cleared the goods exceeding Rs.53 lakh. A show cause notice was issued to both the units and their active partner and the Manager. By the order-in-original dated 12th June....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....atter was referred to a third Member. The learned 3rd Member, after hearing the parties, agreed with the findings of the Judicial Member. In view of the majority decision, all the appeals were allowed and the Order-in-original was set aside. That order is challenged in this Appeal by the Revenue. 5. We have carefully perused the orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise as well as all t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....li, Kolhapur sometime in 1992-93. both the respondents had independently taken loans from the Banks. They had also submitted their separate declarations about the production. It appears that the respondent No.2 had submitted returns about production for the year 1990-91 at Kagal.  Durig the year 1992-93, because it was in the process of shifting from Kagal to Shiroli, the production was much ....