2011 (1) TMI 231 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - Clubbing of clearance - two manufacturers - one premises - the previous occupant of the factory moved out of the factory along with all the machinery and the appellants moved into a vacant factory premises with their own machinery - clearances of the goods from one factory during the financial year by manufacturers require to be clubbed and the clearances in excesses of the limits will not be entitled to exemption under the Notification - value of clearances by different manufacturers from the same factory are required to be clubbed.

Summary

Issues:
Clubbing of clearances under small scale exemption notification based on manufacturing in the same factory premises by different manufacturers.

Analysis:
The issue in this case pertains to the clubbing of clearances under the small scale exemption notification for manufacturers operating in the same factory premises. The authorities below aggregated the value of clearances of two manufacturers, one of whom started manufacturing after the other had shifted to a new premises. The appellant sought to distinguish previous decisions relied upon by the authorities, arguing that they do not apply to their case as they only started manufacturing after the previous occupants had vacated the premises. The Department, represented by the learned DR, contended that the small scale exemption notification mandates the clubbing of clearances from the same factory premises, even if by different manufacturers during different periods of the same financial year. The Department supported the impugned order based on previous case laws.

The Tribunal examined the arguments from both sides and referred to previous judgments. In the case of Comed Chemicals, the Tribunal had held that clearances from one factory by different manufacturers in a financial year must be clubbed, and any excess clearances beyond the limits would not be eligible for exemption. Similarly, the Madras High Court in the case of Dukes Pharma and the Karnataka High Court in the case of Shyam Sunder had also ruled that clearances by different manufacturers from the same factory should be aggregated. The Tribunal found no reason to distinguish these decisions in the present case. The appellant failed to provide evidence supporting their claim that the previous occupant had vacated the factory along with all machinery before they started manufacturing. The Tribunal emphasized that the impugned notification requires the aggregation of clearances from one factory premises, even if made by different manufacturers. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order did not warrant any interference and dismissed the appeal.