2017 (2) TMI 1044 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - clubbing of clearances - Held that - though the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) recorded the objection of the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant at the time of personal hearing on the issue of clubbing of the clearances of both the units, but, she has not recorded any finding on the said issue whether it could be maintainable before her or otherwise - Therefore, the matter needs to be remitted the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to record a finding whether the appellant could be allowed to raise the said point of clubbing of both units on merit - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise-Ahmedabad regarding clubbing of clearances of two manufacturing units for SSI exemption, cum-duty-price benefit, and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise-Ahmedabad. The central issue revolved around the clubbing of clearances of two manufacturing units, namely the appellant's factory and M/s Macons Engineers, for the purpose of determining SSI exemption eligibility. The appellant's factory was found to be operating alongside M/s Macons Engineers in the same premises, leading to the allegation that both units should be considered together for SSI exemption. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of duty and penalties, which was confirmed upon adjudication. The appellant challenged this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals), arguing against the clubbing of clearances and contesting the denial of cum-duty-price benefit and imposition of penalties.

During the proceedings, the appellant's representative vehemently contended that the clubbing of clearances was not justified as M/s Macons Engineers was a separate legal entity. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address this argument in the final order, focusing only on the cum-duty-price benefit and penalties. The Revenue's representative argued that since the appellant did not dispute the clubbing issue earlier and had paid the duty, they could not raise it at a later stage. The Tribunal noted that while the objection to clubbing was raised during the personal hearing, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide a finding on whether this issue could be considered. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to determine if the appellant could raise the clubbing issue and consider it on merit. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing for the appellants and leaving all issues open for further consideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of addressing all relevant issues raised by the parties during the proceedings. The case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a detailed examination of the clubbing issue, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their arguments.