2018 (8) TMI 409 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - clubbing of clearances - whether two units Prakash Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. which is a private limited company and M/s Sarawati Steels a partnership firm are dummy of each other and their value of clearances are required to be clubbed for the purposes of small scale exemption N/N. 08/03-CE dated 01/03/2003? Held that - There is no allegation much less any evidence on record to show that the clearance of one unit was being done under the guise of the name of the other unit. Admittedly family members can float separate units for the manufacture of their various products and as long as they are independent and self-sufficient units, their clearances cannot be clubbed, inasmuch as small scale exemption Notification is independently available to each and every unit. Only in case where either of the two units are not fully equipped to manufacture the final product independently or there is financially intertwining between the two units, it has to be held that the two units are actually one and the same and the clearances are being bifurcated in the name of the two units - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the two units are dummy of each other and their clearances need to be clubbed for small scale exemption.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to four appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), consolidated into a common order. The central issue is whether two units, a private limited company and a partnership firm, are essentially dummy entities of each other, necessitating the clubbing of their clearances for the purpose of small scale exemption under Notification No.08/03-CE dated 01/03/2003. The Original Adjudicating Authority had upheld a demand of &8377; 24,26,337/- along with penalties on various respondents. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision based on evidence and legal precedents, concluding that the units were independent entities with self-sufficient machinery for manufacturing final products, hence, their clearances should not be clubbed. The Commissioner highlighted the distinct legal entities of a partnership firm and a private limited company as a basis for his decision.

The Revenue's appeal primarily relied on statements suggesting familial control over both units, arguing that the clearances should be clubbed due to common management. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument. It noted that both units were independently registered with various government departments and lacked evidence of clearances being interchanged between them. The Tribunal emphasized that family members can establish separate units for manufacturing different products, as long as these units operate independently and are self-sufficient. The absence of evidence indicating financial intertwining or lack of independence between the units led the Tribunal to reject the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, all appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, and cross objections were also disposed of in line with the main decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, emphasizing the independence and self-sufficiency of the two units as crucial factors in determining whether their clearances should be clubbed for small scale exemption purposes. The absence of evidence demonstrating a lack of independence or financial interdependence between the units supported the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. The judgment underscores the importance of legal entities operating autonomously when assessing eligibility for small scale exemptions under relevant notifications.