2008 (2) TMI 336 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants secretly showing its own production of C.I. castings in name of another company (M/s. Reliable) to remain in exemption limit of Rs. 1 crore recovery of sale bills of another Industries from appellant s factory - M/s. Reliable Industries was not having any facility to manufacture of C.I. casting both units are separate legal entities - question involved is not relatable to clubbing of clearances but to compute the clearances of the assessee - demand, interest, penalty is upheld

Summary

Issues:
1. Central excise duty demand for clearances in excess of threshold limit.
2. Adjudication of duty, interest, and penalty.
3. Clubbing of clearances of separate legal entities.
4. Alleged misuse of exemption limit by showing clearances under a different unit's name.
5. Evidence of manufacturing and clearance under a different unit's name.
6. Applicability of case laws and investigation at the supplier's end.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a central excise duty demand for clearances exceeding the threshold limit under Section 11A. The central excise officers visited two factory premises and found discrepancies in the clearances of C.I. casting. The proprietor admitted to the misuse of exemption limit by showing production under a different unit's name to remain within the threshold.

2. The Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings considering the units as separate legal entities. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the decision, confirming the duty, interest, and imposing a penalty under Section 11AC. The Tribunal reviewed the orders and upheld the demand and interest, along with the penalty, as per the Commissioner's decision.

3. The Tribunal clarified that the case did not involve the clubbing of clearances of two units but focused on computing the clearances of the assessee, which were shown to be cleared by another unit. The misuse of showing clearances under a different unit's name was deemed intentional, leading to the demand for duty.

4. The evidence presented, including the admission by the proprietor, absence of manufacturing facilities at the other unit, recovery of sale bills, and statements by partners, supported the revenue's case. The Tribunal noted that the goods were manufactured by the appellant but cleared under the name of the other unit to manipulate the exemption limit.

5. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly analyzed the case laws cited by the Assistant Commissioner and found them inapplicable. The argument that no investigation was conducted at the supplier's end was dismissed, as the supplier would not be aware of the ultimate use of the goods purchased.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no errors in the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, upholding the duty demand, interest, and penalty. The lenient penalty imposed was deemed appropriate, and no further reduction was warranted. The appeal was rejected, affirming the decision on 28-2-2008.