2015 (11) TMI 668 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of SSI Exemption - Clubbing of clearances - units situated within same premises - sharing of common brand name, infrastructure facility and expenses - dummy units - eligibility of benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 1.3.86 to the appellant - Held that - Just because both the factories are situated in the same compound, it is not that the raw materials should not be stocked separately and for the purpose of transportation such common storage is required. The claim is that on several occasions, common transportation and common discharge facilities may be required to be utilized is very weak defense and therefore, we find that this finding has not been countered effectively by the appellant at all. - In the absence of any evidence to show that this amount had been paid back by other unit in whose account it was wrongly credited and details are not made available in the Appeal Memorandum, we have to uphold the stand taken by the Revenue that the appellants were treating both the units as a single entity. As regards use of common brand name, it has been stated that Apex is not a registered brand name of any one. However, the fact that whether brand name is registered is not relevant has not been taken note of and has not been explained by the appellant. In fact, they have stated that the use of brand name is not a criteria till 30.9.1987 since there was no concept at that time. However, why is not relevant has not been explained. In this case, period is from 20.11.86 to 18.7.89) - As regards transfer of goods from one unit to the other, it was stated that there was only one entry and one instance because of clerical error. However the details of when it was noticed and when it was rectified is not forthcoming in the Appeal Memorandum. The same is the case with explanation for clearance of raw materials from one factory to the other. As regards common infrastructure facility, the submission is that this cannot be a bar for denying benefit. However, there was no evidence of payment from one firm to the other has been brought out towards occupied space. It has also not been explained how travelling expenses, contribution of provident fund, salary, etc. have been made by one unit for the other. - appellants have not been able to show that both the units were functioning independently and were capable of functioning independently. In the circumstances, the appeal has no merit - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 1.3.86 for SSI unit.
2. Clubbing of clearances of two units for exemption determination.
3. Wrong availment of Cenvat Credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
1. The issue of eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for an SSI unit was examined. The Revenue contended that the clearances of two units should be clubbed for exemption determination. The investigation revealed various factors indicating lack of independence between the units, such as common storage of raw materials, shared premises, machinery, and brand name, as well as inter-unit financial transactions.

2. The Tribunal found the appellant's defenses inadequate. The appellant failed to provide convincing explanations for the shared facilities and transactions between the units. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in power consumption, machinery ownership, and brand name usage, indicating a lack of independence and eligibility for the exemption.

3. The Tribunal assessed each argument presented by the appellant. The appellant's submissions regarding separate registration, staff, machinery, and records were deemed insufficient to counter the evidence of interdependence between the units. Lack of proper explanations for financial transactions, infrastructure sharing, and brand name usage further weakened the appellant's case.

4. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's stance that the units were operating as a single entity, failing to demonstrate independent functioning. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to the inability of the appellants to establish the units' autonomy and eligibility for the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E.