2018 (1) TMI 703 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - clubbing of clearances - dummy units - Held that - the notification clearly stipulates that aggregate value of all clearances for home consumption by a manufacturer from one or more factory should not exceed ₹ 400 lakh in the preceding financial year - If the said manufacturer is having more than one factory, manufacturing excisable goods, then the turnover has to be taken together for reckoning SSI exemption - demand upheld. Time limitation - Held that - there is no reason for the appellant to entertain a bonafide belief regarding their eligibility to SSI exemption in the face of admitted facts - extended period rightly invoked. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Entitlement to SSI exemption; Clubbing of turnover for SSI exemption; Bonafide belief for SSI exemption eligibility

Entitlement to SSI exemption:
The appeal revolved around the entitlement of the appellant for Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption. The appellant contended that their two manufacturing facilities, registered separately with the Department, should not have their turnover clubbed for SSI exemption calculation. However, the Revenue argued that since both units belonged to the same manufacturer, their turnover should be combined for the SSI exemption limit. The lower authorities ruled against the appellant, upholding a demand and imposing a penalty under Section 11 AC.

Clubbing of turnover for SSI exemption:
The appellant claimed to have two units manufacturing different products with separate central excise registrations. The appellant argued that the turnover of these units should not be clubbed for SSI exemption purposes. On the contrary, the Revenue asserted that the units were part of a single manufacturing company, sharing the same facilities and management, indicating an artificial split-up. The Tribunal observed that the notification required the turnover of all factories by a manufacturer to be considered together for SSI exemption.

Bonafide belief for SSI exemption eligibility:
Regarding the bonafide belief of the appellant in claiming SSI exemption, the Tribunal noted that the appellant, a single legal entity with common management and registrations, knowingly obtained two central excise registrations to avail SSI exemption. The Tribunal found no justification for the appellant to hold a bonafide belief in their eligibility for SSI exemption, given the admitted facts. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower authority's decision on both merit and limitation.

The judgment emphasized that the appellant, as a single legal entity, could not segregate the turnover of its manufacturing units for SSI exemption purposes. The Tribunal highlighted that the notification required the turnover of all factories of a manufacturer to be aggregated for determining SSI exemption eligibility. Additionally, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument of a bonafide belief in claiming SSI exemption, citing the deliberate actions taken by the appellant to obtain multiple registrations for this purpose. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, upholding the lower authority's decision on the matter.