2017 (3) TMI 1671 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - dummy unit - clubbing of clearances - it was alleged that appellant is located at Sundarapuram, Coimbatore called as Unit-II and with the similar name, another unit is located at R.S.Puram, Coimbatore called as Unit-I - Held that - When the appellant has not appeared to defend against the allegations of Revenue, it appears that the present appeal is an abuse of process of law for which that is dismissed - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Adjournment sought by the appellant for several years.
2. Allegations of operating as one unit despite claiming to be independent units.
3. Abuse of process of law by the appellant.
4. Stay order by the High Court in a related matter.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the issue of the appellant seeking adjournment repeatedly over seven years without showing interest in pursuing the appeal. The Tribunal notes the appellant's lack of commitment and dismisses the appeal due to the appellant's consistent failure to actively participate in the proceedings.

2. The Tribunal examines the case where two units, Unit-I and Unit-II, operated under a common adjudication order but claimed to be independent entities. However, it was discovered that the units were essentially one entity exploiting the benefits of the Small Scale Industries (SSI) notification. The Commissioner found discrepancies in their operations and denied the SSI benefits due to the lack of transparency and failure to prove independent manufacturing status. Despite the appellant's absence to defend against the Revenue's allegations, the Tribunal deems the appeal an abuse of the legal process and dismisses it.

3. The judgment highlights the abuse of the legal process by the appellant, emphasizing that the appeal is a misuse of the law. Even in the absence of the appellant to counter the Revenue's allegations, the Tribunal concludes that the appeal is frivolous and serves no legitimate purpose. This decision underscores the importance of upholding the integrity of legal proceedings and preventing the misuse of the judicial system.

4. Additionally, the judgment mentions a stay order issued by the High Court in a related matter concerning Unit-I. The Tribunal clarifies that the stay order does not apply to the present proceedings before them, indicating that the issues being addressed in the current appeal are distinct from those covered by the High Court's stay order. This clarification ensures that the Tribunal's decision is made independently of any external legal actions involving the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment reflects the Tribunal's commitment to upholding the integrity of legal proceedings, addressing allegations of misuse of benefits and the judicial process. The dismissal of the appeal underscores the importance of actively participating in legal proceedings and maintaining transparency in business operations to avoid legal consequences.