TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1183
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants undertake such manufacturing activities in their factory situated at Village Valiv, Vasai Vajreshwary Road, Vasai (E), Dist-Thane. The appellant being a Small Scale Industrial Unit (SSI Unit), during the disputed period had availed the benefit of Notification No. 9/2000-C.E., dated 01.03.2000 in respect of the clearances of the final products made by them. However, the department had denied the benefit of the exemption notification, on the ground that M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd., is the holding company of the appellants since, they hold almost 80% of the share capital in the appellants company. Thus, it was contended by Revenue that if the value of clearances/turnover of Parle Products is added to the cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considered favourably by the department by way of issuing the certificate in their favour, without mentioning the name of the parent company therein. Thus, she submitted that the clearance value of both the units cannot be clubbed together, in order to deny the SSI benefit provided under the Notification dated 01.03.2000. She further submitted that the grounds urged in the show cause notice with regard to the interconnected undertaking is relevant only for the purpose of determination of the 'transaction value' under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the said concept cannot be borrowed or applied for the purpose of consideration of issue of availment of the SSI exemption provided under the Notification dated 01.03.2000. To supp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enied the benefit of such notification solely on the ground that the appellants are 'interconnected undertaking' of M/s Parle Products Pvt. Ltd., and as such, the clearance value of such holding company should be clubbed with the clearance value of the appellants for the purpose of denying the benefit of Notification dated 01.03.2000, as a SSI Unit. On reading of the said Notification dated 01.03.2000, we find that the concept of 'interconnected undertaking', 'holding and subsidiary' etc., had not been dealt with by the Central Government therein. It is not the case of Revenue that the appellants had not maintained separate accounting records, reflecting their financial particulars. Since, the appellants are recognized as an independent man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lding company. When 100% of the shares are held, Interest is paid on the loan or not does not really make a difference for the transaction between the two. Because in any case the holding company would have to bear the entire amount or profit or loss, whatever be the result of the activity of the subsidiary. 3. We also take note of the fact that the original adjudicating authority while dropping the show cause notice has made the following observations: (a) The two companies are located at different places and are Independent legal entities, (b) M/s. HLPL did not sell any of the goods manufactured by them to the assessee company. (c) The products manufactured by M/s. HLPL and the assessee were different. (d) There were no com....