2008 (9) TMI 637 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against demand confirmation due to clubbing clearances of two factories for exemption calculation under notification on the ground of common ownership.

Analysis:
The appellants challenged the impugned order confirming the demand by aggregating the clearances of two factories owned by different entities for exemption calculation. The argument presented was that one factory was under the proprietor's control, while the other was under a partnership firm, asserting their independent and distinct identities, thus opposing the clubbing of clearances.

The Respondent, through the Learned SDR, contended that the proprietor of one factory had financial ties with the partners of the other factory. It was highlighted that the proprietor had invested funds from the H.U.F. and had also borrowed from his son and daughter-in-law, who were partners in the second factory. Additionally, it was pointed out that the proprietor managed the day-to-day operations of both factories, which were situated in adjacent sheds, produced similar goods, and had intertwined financial interests.

Upon examination, it was established that both units were under the control of the same individual, and financial resources from one unit were utilized in the operations of the other. The tribunal concluded that due to the unity of financial control and interdependence in financial resourcing between the factories, the argument of the appellants regarding the independence of the factories lacked merit. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the decision to club the clearances for exemption calculation.

The judgment, delivered by S.S. Kang, Vice-President, emphasized the significance of financial control and sourcing in determining the unity of factories under common ownership. The decision underscored the interconnected nature of the operations and financial interests as crucial factors in assessing the independence of factories for exemption calculation purposes.