2000 (5) TMI 104 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Clubbing of Clearances
2. Common Administration and Financial Interest
3. Demand and Penalty
4. Time Bar and Suppression of Facts

Summary:

1. Clubbing of Clearances:
The appellants challenged the clubbing of clearances of multiple units under Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1-3-1986, arguing that separate entities should be treated independently for exemption purposes. The Tribunal referred to the case of Gajanan Fabric Distributors v. CCE, where it was held that if units are found to be a facade, the duty demand should be on the real manufacturer, not the facade units.

2. Common Administration and Financial Interest:
The department argued that the units had common administration and financial interests, managed by a single family under S.K. Suratkal, thus justifying the clubbing of clearances. Evidence included shared employees, financial transactions, and mutual business interests among the units. The Tribunal noted that the existence of common administration and financial control by Highland Bombay and S.K. Suratkal was established, supporting the department's stance.

3. Demand and Penalty:
The department issued a show cause notice seeking to recover differential duty of Rs. 74,61,625/- and imposed penalties on the units and individuals involved. The appellants argued that the demand should be on Highland Bombay if the units are considered facades. The Tribunal, referencing the Gajanan Fabric Distributors case, agreed that the duty demand should be on Highland Bombay, not the individual units.

4. Time Bar and Suppression of Facts:
The appellants contended that the demand was barred by time as there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. They argued that all necessary documents were provided to the department, and regular audits were conducted. The Tribunal found that the department was aware of the units' operations through submitted documents and audits, thus the extended period for demand was not applicable. The Tribunal held that the impugned order could not be maintained due to time bar and lack of suppression of facts.

Order:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order on the ground of time bar, allowing the appeals with consequential relief according to law.