2004 (4) TMI 203

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to the Appellant No. 1. 2. Shri P.C. Jain, learned Advocate submitted that Appellant No. 1 M/s. Tapsya Steels (P) Ltd. manufactures MS ingots with the help of old and used induction furnace purchased from M/s. Doaba Rolling Mills Ltd., Appellant No. 2; that the Appellant No. 1 is a private Ltd. Company holding separate registration, income tax and sales tax and as such are an independent manufacturer; that M/s. Doaba Rolling Mills Ltd. also manufacture MS ingots and runners and risers; that they held a separate registration under Factory Act, Registration under ESI, Income tax and sales tax; that it has been clarified in Meerut Collectorate Trade Notice No. 53/92, dated 11-11-92 that "Limited Companies, whether public or private, are ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....all; that had there been no separation by boundary wall, the Central Excise officer would not have approved the site plan; that storing scrap and other materials together or supply of water pipeline from the nearby factory does not prove anything against them; that it is settled law that common office and telephone number does not warrant clubbing of two clearances [Metrosyl v. CCE, Patna - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 130 (T). He also submitted that if both the units are one and the same, the question of demanding the duty from both the units separately does not arise. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gajanan Fabrics Distributors v. Central Excise, Pune [1997 (92) E.L.T. 451 (S.C.)] and Tribunal's decision in Nitin Steel....