2005 (12) TMI 25 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise SSI Exemption Mere transfer of technology does not make two units mutually interested (Related units) No financial flow back Clubbing is not possible

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of clubbing values of clearances between two companies
2. Denial of value-based duty exemption on use of brand name
3. Denial of exemption based on classification issue
4. Adoption of selling price of one company as assessable value for goods cleared by another company

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II Commissionerate. The key issue was whether the values of clearances between two companies should be clubbed together. The Commissioner held that the sale price of one company should form the basis of assessment for Central Excise duty purposes when goods are cleared by one company to another. This decision was based on the mutual interest in the business of each other as evidenced by agreements between the companies. A demand of differential duty was confirmed, and penalties were imposed on the companies and directors.

2. The advocates for the appellants argued that the Commissioner erred in holding the companies as related persons under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They contended that mutuality of interest should be established before such a finding is made. They presented various grounds challenging the Commissioner's decision, including the nature of the relationship between the companies and the pricing of goods sold to independent purchasers. They also disputed the quantification of the demand and penalties imposed.

3. Upon careful review of the case records, the Appellate Tribunal found that the arrangement between the companies was a mutually beneficial one where technology was transferred from one company to another. The Tribunal cited relevant case laws and noted that there was no evidence of mutual interest in the business of each other. It was observed that the companies were independent legal entities, and there was no financial flowback between them. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that goods were sold to an independent buyer at a fair price, indicating that the relationship between the companies did not influence pricing. Consequently, the demand of differential duty on one company was deemed unsustainable, and the imposition of penalties was unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.