TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....') is engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel Structure etc. On receipt of information that this firm had floated two front units, namely, M/s. Cold Steel Corpn. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. CSC') [appellants no. 2] and M/s. Super Steel Corpn. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. SSC') [appellants no. 3] in order to fraudulently avail the benefit of SSI Exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993, surprise raid was carried out on the premises of all these firms. During investigation, it revealed that all these firms were situated in the inter-connected premises, had common office, office equipments closely related partners and common employees. It also revealed that appellants no. 4 was proprietor of the firm, appellants no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent Central Excise licences and there was no flow back of money from one firm to another. The correlationship of the partners of all the firms could not be taken as sufficient ground for clubbing their clearances. The counsel has also contended that since the duty has been confirmed on all the three firms, it shows that they all had been acknowledged as independent units by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order of the Commissioner is based on surmises and conjuctures and as such deserves to be set aside. 5.On the other hand, the learned DR, has simply reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 6.We have heard both sides and gone through the facts on record. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erns in which, appellant no. 4 is one of the partners. All the firms have got separate independent Central Excise Registration, DIC Registration, Sales Tax Registration and Income-tax Registration. 7.There is no tangible evidence on the record to prove the financial flow back from one firm to another which is most essential for clubbing the clearances of the units. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Indian Metal Indus. v. CCE, Bhuvaneshwar, 1999 (108) E.L.T. 593 (T), wherein it has been so ruled. Similarly, in the case of CCE, Rajkot v. Amar Plast Indus., 2000 (115) E.L.T. 482 (T), it has been held that use of common premises, telephone, common electric generator and cutting/mixing machines are not enough for clubbing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k of the profit or money from one firm to another. This judgment of the Tribunal had been even upheld by the Apex Court as reported in 1999 (106) E.L.T. A-66. This very view has been reiterated in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Ambica Scale Mfg. Works, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 229 (T) and Binod Kumar Maheswari v. CCE, Calcutta, 1997 (90) E.L.T. 83 (T). 9.In the case of Prabhat Dyes & Chemicals v. CCE, 1992 (62) E.L.T. 469 (T), it has been held by the Tribunal that relationship between the persons of one firm and proprietor of another firm, combined purchase of raw material, interest free loan by one to the other were insufficient to club the value of the clearances of both the firms, when they both were separately registered as SSI units and also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....units a single entity in inter-connected premises, with having common office, etc. But it is evident from the record that all the three firms started production in different years. The firm, appellants no. 1, came into existence in the year 1985 and firm, appellants no. 2 in November, 1990 while appellants no. 3, in the year July, 1996. They all got themselves registered with the Central Excise Department. At the time of getting registration, they all disclosed their constitution, place of work, goods to be manufactured by them, etc. The Excise Department, therefore, very well knew from the date of their registration, all the material facts regarding the constitution and functioning of the firms. Therefore, it could not be said that any mat....