2016 (11) TMI 228 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - use of brand name - Notification No. 8/2003-CE - exclusion of export turnover - It was alleged that these two partnership firms cannot be considered as separate legal entities for the purpose of calculation of SSI exemption and there turnover has to be clubbed together for this purpose - it has been brought out during investigation that HP and HPC do not have separate arrangement for keeping raw materials and finished goods and these are stored in common premises only - Held that - it is clear that there is complete common administration and financial control of the two firms. Day-to-day affairs of HPC are managed by the partners of the HP - The brand name apparently cannot belong to two different entities if the appellants arguments of HP and HPC are two different legal entities for SSI exemption then use of common brand bane will deprive atleast one of them from SSI exemption. Regarding the claim of the appellant for exclusion of export turnover, we find that the appellants themselves did not export the product - in the absence of categorical evidence supported by documents, the claim of the appellant cannot be considered - Appeal dismissed - decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Central Excise duty liability, Clubbing of clearances for SSI exemption, Production capacity, Export turnover exclusion, Cenvat credit eligibility, Confiscation of goods

Central Excise Duty Liability:
The judgment involves appeals against an order regarding Central Excise duty liability of a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing lay flat tubing and bags. The issue revolves around the alleged creation of another unit to bifurcate sales figures and avail SSI exemption. The original authority confirmed duty demand and imposed penalties, along with ordering confiscation of goods.

Clubbing of Clearances for SSI Exemption:
The appellants contested the clubbing of clearances of the partnership firms for claiming the benefit of SSI exemption, arguing that they are separate legal entities. The appellants emphasized that the benefit should not be denied based on presumptions and that the brand name issue did not prove ownership. They also highlighted the lack of consideration of export details by the original authority.

Production Capacity:
The appellants disputed their production capacity to produce the attributed goods and emphasized their export activities, supported by Form H submissions. They claimed eligibility for cenvat credit if held liable for Central Excise duty.

Export Turnover Exclusion:
The judgment addresses the appellants' claim for exclusion of export turnover, which the original authority did not consider due to insufficient evidence linking the exports to the goods produced. The appellants' submission of Forms H lacked necessary documentation for export verification.

Cenvat Credit Eligibility:
In case the partnership firm is held liable for Central Excise duty, the appellants asserted their eligibility for cenvat credit of raw materials, emphasizing compliance with legal provisions and challenging the confiscation of goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.

Confiscation of Goods:
The judgment evaluates the legality of confiscating raw materials, semi-finished, and finished goods from the premises of the partnership firms. The appellants argued against the confiscation, stating no violation of law and challenging the sustainability of the seizure.

The judgment extensively analyzes the interconnection between the partnership firms, common management, financial control, and shared facilities to determine the validity of the SSI exemption claim. The court scrutinizes the evidence of common procurement, loan transactions, and administration to establish the firms' intertwined operations. The judgment concludes by upholding the original authority's findings on the ineligibility for SSI exemption, penalties, and the confiscation of goods, ultimately dismissing the appeals.