TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (6) TMI 197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Acufil Machines and M/s. Style Pack (Electronics) Co. (the other appellants) were vacated. 2.This is a case originating from a Show-cause notice issued to the aforesaid parties, wherein the main allegation raised by the department against M/s. Acufil Machines was that they had cleared a part of their own production of packing and allied machines under the invoices of M/s. Style Pack (Electronic) Co. with intent to take undue benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. and Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The show cause notice was issued on the basis of the results of certain investigations conducted by the department. Officers of Central Excise had visited the factory premises of M/s. Acufil Machines (hereinafter referred to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Acufil. Mahazars were drawn in respect of the inspected premises. Statements were recorded on 16-12-95 from Shri Athinarayanan and Shri R. Ethirajan, wherein they, inter alia, stated that the goods shown to have been cleared from the premises of acufil under the invoices of style had actually been manufactured by Acufil and that style had been floated by ACUFIL only for the purpose of remaining within exemption limits under the aforesaid Notifications. In January, 1996, Shri Athinarayanan and Shri R. Ethirajan wrote letters to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, wherein they claimed that the above statements were recorded under coercion and hence not voluntary. 3.As already noted, the department's case in the show cause notice w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nine machines were available at Acufil's premises, which were, admittedly, the machines required for the manufacture of packing & allied machines, whereas the fewer machines which were found in the premises of Style were not enough for carrying out such process of manufacture. Hence there could not have been any manufacturing activity in Style's premises. (ii) The electricity consumption in Style premises was to the meagre extent of 120 units for the period January to September, 1995 as evidenced by the Electricity Consumption Card recovered from those premises. There was no evidence of any further consumption of power, nor was any generator found to have been installed in the premises. This sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same bears the jurisdictional Commissioner's signature. The Consultant's objection cannot be sustained. 6.Ld. Consultant submits that the charge against Acufil cannot be sustained inasmuch as there is neither any allegation nor any finding of financial flow back or of mutuality of interest between them and Style. The two firms have separate Central Excise Registration; they were working in separate premises; they were maintaining separate accounts for Income-tax and Sales tax purposes; they were using separate machineries for their manufacturing activity; they were employing separate labour and so on. Ld. Consultant further submits that the allegation that there was no manufacturing activity in Style premises is baseless inasmuch as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings, Style wanted to cross-examine the officers, but the request was turned down by the original authority without stating any valid reason. 8.We have given careful consideration to the submissions. There is no dispute regarding the separate identity of Acufil and Style. The Show-cause notice does not say that any of them is a dummy of the other unit for all purposes. The main factual allegation raised in the notice is that, during the relevant period, there was no activity of manufacture of packing & allied machines in the factory of Style and that the goods manufactured by Acufil were shown as having been manufactured by Style and were cleared under invoices drawn in the name of Style. The factual question, therefore, is (whether the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted and did not contain any categorical retraction of what was admitted by the two partners in their statements dated 16-12-1995 given under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. It was the very basis of the show cause notice that was conceded by Shri Athinarayanan and Shri R. Ethirajan. In the absence of valid retraction, the admission by the parties went totally in favour of the Revenue's case and it was not necessary for the department to struggle for any further evidence. We, further, observe that, where the allegation raised by the department against the assessee for the purposes of denying the benefit of SSI exemption is squarely admitted by the parties, considerations such as financial flowback and mutuality of interest do not become....