2008 (1) TMI 106 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant No.1 had floated a dummy unit (Appellant No. 2 herein) having, managerial, operational & financial controls over the said dummy unit - unlawfully availing S.S.I. exemption u/not. 175/86 no statement to prove both units independent dummy unit has been formed to avoid legal complication of Central excise, Income Tax, Factoris Act etc - they are liable for clubbing of clearances - impugned order of demand & penalty didn t suffer from any legal infirmity including the plea of time-bar

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order of clubbing clearances, imposition of duty, penalty, and appropriation of security deposit; Allegations of unauthorized production and removal of excisable goods; Corporate veil lifting; Denial of SSI exemption; Clubbing of clearances; Appeal against Order-in-Original; Bar on limitation period; Distinctness of units; Rebuttal of evidence; Legal infirmity in the impugned order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to Order of Clubbing Clearances:
The Appellants contested the order of clubbing clearances made by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise. The order imposed duty, penalty, and appropriated a security deposit. Allegations included unauthorized production and removal of excisable goods, leading to the initiation of proceedings based on a show-cause notice. The Appellants challenged the clubbing of clearances, denial of SSI exemption, and imposition of penalties.

2. Corporate Veil Lifting and Denial of SSI Exemption:
The authorities lifted the corporate veil of the Appellant No. (1) to establish that Appellant No. (2) was a dummy unit under its control. Statements recorded during the enquiry revealed control and financial links between the two entities. The Appellants failed to provide evidence to contradict these statements. Consequently, the denial of SSI exemption and clubbing of clearances were upheld by the learned First Appellate Authority.

3. Appeal Against Order-in-Original and Limitation Period:
The Appellants appealed against the Order-in-Original, arguing that the proceedings were time-barred due to the issuance of the show-cause notice after a specific period. They emphasized the distinctness of the units and cited various legal judgments to support their contentions. However, the authorities found the evidence presented insufficient to disprove the control and linkages between the Appellants.

4. Rebuttal of Evidence and Legal Infirmity:
During the hearing, the Appellants failed to rebut the evidence presented against them, especially regarding the financial and administrative control exercised by Appellant No. (1) over Appellant No. (2). The statements of key individuals highlighted the intertwined nature of the operations, leading to the decision to lift the corporate veil. The Appellants' failure to provide substantial evidence to counter these findings resulted in the dismissal of their appeals.

5. Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the decision of the learned First Appellate Authority. The judgment emphasized the lack of evidence presented by the Appellants to challenge the findings regarding the control and relationship between the two entities. The decision highlighted the importance of substantiating claims and providing concrete evidence in legal proceedings to support one's case effectively.