2017 (8) TMI 1171 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2017 (358) E.L.T. 99 (Del.) – SSI exemption – dummy units – It was found that while the Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) was issued to the Respondent and three of its directors, no SCN was issued to the dummy units – Held that: – each of the four units have independent existence as private limited companies or partnerships. Two of them were stated to be existing even prior to the incorporation of the Respondent – without issuing the SCN to the other units, the clearance of those units could not be combined with that of the Respondent – appeal dismissed – decided in favor of respondent-assessee. – CEAC No. 22/2017 & CM APPL 28676/2017 Dated:- 11-8-2017 – S. MURALIDHAR & PRATHIBA M. SINGH JJ. Appellant Th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
uring of cardboard cartons but is not registered with the department since the turnover was much below the threshold limit under CE Act. 3. According to the Department, the Respondent was manufacturing the excisable goods by using various dummy units that were managed and controlled by the Directors of the Respondent. It was found that while the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) was issued to the Respondent and three of its directors, no SCN was issued to the dummy units. The demand raised in the SCN was confirmed by the impugned order of the CCE dated 27th February, 2009. 4. One of the points urged by the Respondent before the CESTAT was that the turnover of the four dummy units i.e. Unichem Engineering (P) Ltd., Anant Packaging, Akriti Packaging
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
mier Heavy Engineering Corporation v. CCE 2016 (337) ELT 332 (Guj). The CESTAT quashed the demand confirmed by the impugned adjudication order. 6. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department, relied on the decision of this Court in Diwan Sahib Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-I 2013 (288) ELT 529 (Tri-Del). 7. Having perused the said decision, the Court finds that it is distinguishable in its application to the facts of the present case. In that case, both the units whose turnover was sought to be clubbed were in fact issued the SCN. On the other hand, in the present case, the turnover of the four units whose turnover was sought to be clubbed with that of the Respondent were not issued the SCN. 8. The Court finds
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =