Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Royal Refrigeration Industries on 12 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(72)ECC520, 2001(138)ELT196(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against Order-in-Original No. 104/92 dated 18.8.92 by which the Commissioner applied the ratio of CCE's Order No. 37/85 and Order No. 44/87 dated 8.5.87 wherein on de novo consideration the Commissioner had dropped the proceedings in Order No. 70/92 dated 31.3.92 against the respondents on the ground that the Revenue has not been able to show that the three units were dummy units and their clearance were required to be clubbed with the respondents clearances. The Board has merely reviewed the order without producing any fresh evidence or evidence which was relied earlier to show that the other three units namely M/s. Chakri Industries, Hyderabad, M/s. Maruthi Works, Hyderabad & M/s. Vijayaram Industries, Hyderabad were dummy units of the respondents and their clearances are required to be clubbed. The respondents were not served through the Tribunal, therefore the Tribunal directed the Commissioner to have the notices served Ld. DR Shri M.K. Kannan submits the report of Dy. Commissioner and the Panchnama. Copy of the Panchnama indicates that the respondent has vacated the premises two years back and that the respondent assessee is not in existence. However, they pasted on the premises on which the said respondent was functioning earlier.
2. Heard Ld. DR and the various grounds made out in the appeal and perused the order.
3. We notice from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Electrolytic Foils Ltd. as reported in 1997 (91) ELT 543 (SC) that the Revenue appeal is required to be dismissed for want of prosecution when the respondents cannot be served since their units has completely closed down. The Apex Court order is reproduced herein below:
The service on the respondent has not been possible because the Unit has closed down and the information supplied by the Deputy Commissioner (Legal) is that even land on which the Unit stood has since been sold to M/s. Nagarjuna Palma (India) Ltd. which is constructing its own factory on the land purchased by it. It is, therefore, obvious that the respondent Unit has completely closed down and even the parcel of land owned by it has been disposed of and, therefore we see no reason in permitting the appellant to pursue this appeal. We dispose of the appeal for want of prosecution since the respondent cannot be served. There will be no order as to costs.
In the present case also as per the mahazar and report filed, respondents are not in existence and they have closed down the unit. Our notices sent through the Registry also has come back undelivered with the same endorsement. In that view of the matter and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is dismissed by applying the ration of the Apex Court judgment noted above.