Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (12) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (12) TMI 222 - AT - Central Excise


Issues Involved
1. Clubbing of clearances of M/s. Packers India and M/s. AGK Packers with the appellant-company.
2. Denial of SSI exemption to the appellant-company.
3. Applicability of CBEC Circular No. 6/92 dated 29.5.1992.
4. Issuance of show cause notice to alleged dummy units.

Detailed Analysis

1. Clubbing of Clearances
The primary issue was whether the clearances of M/s. Packers India and M/s. AGK Packers should be clubbed with the appellant-company. The department argued that M/s. Packers India and M/s. AGK Packers were managed by the same individuals who were also directors of the appellant-company, thus justifying the clubbing of clearances. However, the Tribunal found that M/s. AGK Packers had separate income tax registration, sales tax registration, central excise registration, electricity connection, SSI registration, bank account, and workforce. The Tribunal concluded that M/s. AGK Packers was an independent entity and not a dummy unit of the appellant-company. Therefore, clubbing the clearances was not justified.

2. Denial of SSI Exemption
The department sought to deny the SSI exemption to the appellant-company by clubbing the clearances of M/s. Packers India and M/s. AGK Packers. The Tribunal noted that after the appellant-company took over M/s. Packers India, the latter ceased to have an individual existence. The Tribunal also observed that M/s. AGK Packers was a separate entity with its own excise registration and was clearing finished products by paying duty and availing CENVAT credit. Consequently, the denial of SSI exemption based on clubbing was not legally sustainable.

3. Applicability of CBEC Circular No. 6/92
The Tribunal referred to CBEC Circular No. 6/92 dated 29.5.1992, which clarifies that the clearances of a partnership firm cannot be clubbed with that of a company even if they have common partners or directors. The Tribunal found that the department was influenced by the fact that the same individuals were involved in both entities. However, this alone was insufficient to justify clubbing, as the partnership firm and the company were distinct legal entities.

4. Issuance of Show Cause Notice to Alleged Dummy Units
The Tribunal highlighted that separate show cause notices had not been issued to M/s. AGK Packers and M/s. Packers India, despite the department's allegations that these were dummy units. Citing the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Urbane Industries, the Tribunal emphasized that non-issuance of a show cause notice to the alleged dummy unit would vitiate the proceedings. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly analyzed this issue and followed the consistent view of the Tribunal in similar cases.

Conclusion
The Tribunal concluded that the department had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that M/s. AGK Packers and M/s. Packers India were dummy units of the appellant-company. The clearances of these entities could not be clubbed with those of the appellant-company, and the denial of SSI exemption was not justified. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeals filed by the department.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates