9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 864 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - Clubbing of clearance - clearances made in the name of all the seven units - Notification no. 83/83 - whether limited company is a separate entity and clearances of the said company could not have been clubbed with the clearance of other entities Held that - There is no ruling by the court that clearances of a limited company cannot be clubbed with clearances of any other entity under any circumstances for the purpose of deciding the exemption limit under Notification 175/86-C.E. - clubbing of clearance of the seven units in the hands of Heemanshu Traders is warranted. Application for rectification of mistake - held that - while considering the ROM applications in the context of the directions of the High Court of Gujarat there is no scope to negate the clubbing of the clearances of the six partnership firms.
Issues Involved:
1. Clubbing of clearances of different entities for small-scale exemption eligibility. 2. Applicability of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 6/92. 3. Error apparent on the face of the record. 4. Limitation period for filing rectification of mistake applications. Detailed Analysis: 1. Clubbing of Clearances of Different Entities for Small-Scale Exemption Eligibility: The primary issue was whether the clearances made by seven entities should be considered as the clearances of a single unit, M/s. Heemanshu Traders, for determining eligibility for small-scale exemptions under various notifications. The adjudicating authority concluded that the clearances should be clubbed, and this decision was upheld by the Tribunal in its order dated 19-12-2002. The Tribunal found that the entities were interdependent, shared resources, and engaged in practices that suggested mutuality of interest and financial flow-back, justifying the clubbing of clearances. 2. Applicability of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 6/92: The Applicants argued that the Tribunal did not consider Circular No. 6/92, which states that limited companies are separate entities and their clearances should not be clubbed with other entities. The Gujarat High Court directed the Tribunal to re-examine this issue. Upon re-examination, the Tribunal found that the circular and the Supreme Court's decision in Supreme Washers (P) Ltd. did not preclude the clubbing of clearances if the entities were merely legal facades used to evade taxes. The Tribunal concluded that the clearances of Heemanshu Auto (P) Ltd., a private limited company, could be clubbed with those of the other six partnership firms based on the facts of the case. 3. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record: The Tribunal considered whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record that warranted rectification. The JCDR argued that only patent, manifest, and self-evident errors should be corrected, and any error requiring elaborate discussion or travel beyond the record could not be considered. The Tribunal held that the argument regarding the scope of rectification should have been raised by the Revenue through an appeal against the High Court's decision. The Tribunal also noted that failure to consider a Supreme Court decision constitutes an error apparent by reason of the doctrine of per incuriam. 4. Limitation Period for Filing Rectification of Mistake Applications: The Tribunal initially dismissed the rectification applications on the grounds of being time-barred under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act. However, the Gujarat High Court directed the Tribunal to consider the applications on merits, disregarding the limitation period due to the specific circumstances under which the Applicants were permitted to withdraw their earlier petitions. Conclusion: The Tribunal, after a detailed analysis of the facts and applicable law, affirmed its earlier decision to club the clearances of the seven entities in the hands of M/s. Heemanshu Traders. The Tribunal found no error in its original order dated 19-12-2002 and disposed of the rectification applications accordingly. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision was based on the interdependence and mutuality of interest among the entities, and the applicability of Circular No. 6/92 did not alter this conclusion. The applications for rectification of mistake were thus dismissed, and the original order was upheld.
|
