2008 (7) TMI 107 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - three units operating from the same premises having common plant and machinery, common staff etc. - the respondent have accepted the duty liability on behalf of all the three units as he has admitted to be controlling all the three units appellant and his employees also admitted that no separate records were maintained in respect of production and storage of goods of the three units clubbing of clearances to deny exemption is justified revenue s appeal allowed

Summary

Issues: Clubbing of turnover of three units, maintainability of appeal, inclusion of cash transaction amount, penalty enhancement

Clubbing of Turnover of Three Units:
The case involved the manufacturing of imitation jewelry by three units operating from the same premises with common resources. The investigation revealed that despite separate names, the units shared machinery, staff, raw materials, and sales. The key person was involved in handling manufacturing and sales for all units. A show cause notice was issued for clubbing the clearances of all three units under a specific exemption notification. The Joint Commissioner adjudicated, ordering the clubbing of turnover, duty demand, interest, and penalties. An appeal was filed against this order, and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal. The respondents did not file an appeal against the Joint Commissioner's order. The main issue raised was the clubbing of clearances and the liability of each unit.

Maintainability of Appeal:
During the hearing, a preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the appeal filed by Revenue. The objection was based on the fact that the duty was demanded only from one unit, not all three, despite the proposal to club the clearances of all units. Citing precedents, it was argued that the appeal should have included all units if their clearances were to be clubbed. The argument highlighted the need for consistency in addressing cases where multiple units are involved.

Inclusion of Cash Transaction Amount:
The appeal also contested the inclusion of a cash transaction amount of Rs. 25,00,000 in the turnover calculation. The Revenue argued that the amount was admitted by key individuals and supported by statements, making it a valid basis for duty demand. The respondents disputed this inclusion, claiming the transaction was for all three units, and duty liability should be limited accordingly. However, the Tribunal found the evidence sufficient to uphold the duty demand based on the admissions and supporting statements.

Penalty Enhancement:
Regarding penalty enhancement, the Tribunal noted that the penalty on the key individual was increased due to the nature of the offense. The decision to enhance the penalty was based on the seriousness of the evasion of duty, emphasizing the need for appropriate penalties in such cases.

Overall, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, and increased the penalty on the key individual. The Cross Objections filed by the respondents were dismissed due to lack of pressing the issues during the hearing.