2024 (4) TMI 958 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - clubbing of clearances of four units - dummy unit created for the purpose of claiming benefit of SSI exemption - Confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine - HELD THAT - Though the units were jointly managed by way of common employee common workers common marketing set-up etc. the benefit of SSI exemption notification was claimed individually by each of one of them. M/s Precision Equipment Co. was started in the year 1991 as proprietary firm under the proprietorship of Shri Rajubhai Jaisinghani. Later on one by one other firms were created. Another allegation of the Revenue is that all the units were so much interdependent on each other that production and marketing were commonly managed by Proprietors and Directors of the firm and there is financial flow back between them. It is found that all the units have their own separate and independent existence. M/s Precision Equipment Co. was a proprietorship firm of Shri Rajubhai Jaisinghani M/s Pratik Enterprises was a proprietorship firm of Shri Bhagubhai Prajapati M/s Precision Industries was a proprietorship firm of Shri Prembhai Manuskhani and M/s Precision Rotogravure pvt. Ltd. had three directors viz. (i) Rajubhai Jaisinghani Shri Bhagubhai Prajapati and Shri Prembhai Mansukhani. Separate Locations Central Sale Tax Registration Certificate Gujarat Commercial Tax Registration Certificate separate Electricity Meters and separate Bank Accounts. Appellants also produced before us their separate profit loss accounts balance sheets Audit reports VAT return filed by them sample bank account statements purchase accounts and sales accounts. In the present matter it is admitted fact by the revenue itself that M/s Precision Industries had bought raw materials and got finished goods manufactured on Job Work Basis. The Job Workers had also accepted that they had done job work of M/s Precision Industries also. The officers had also visited the premises of all units and found that all the units have separate existence and have separate premises and independent electricity connection etc. Some processes were being done outside the premises on job work basis by the said units which were also confirmed by the job workers. In the present case the individual manufacturing appellants have independent identities since the Revenue could not establish that their books of accounts are common that their bank accounts are common that their registration with Income Tax Sales Tax are common and that there is common funding and that there is mutuality of interest and that there is financial flowback. In the absence of any such evidence it is held that the manufacturer units are independent units and therefore their clearances could not be clubbed together. Therefore the issue of clubbing the clearances is not sustainable in the absence of concrete and corroborative evidences. Confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine - HELD THAT - Confiscation of the goods which were not available is not legal and correct therefore consequently redemption fine was not warranted as held in the Larger Bench s judgment in the case of SHIV KRIPA ISPAT PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. CUS. NASIK 2009 (1) TMI 124 - CESTAT MUMBAI . The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Clubbing of clearances of four units.
2. Denial of SSI exemption.
3. Imposition of Central Excise Duty, interest, and penalties.
4. Confiscation and redemption fine.

Summary:

1. Clubbing of Clearances:
The appellants contested the clubbing of clearances of four units: M/s Precision Equipment Co., M/s Pratik Enterprises, M/s Precision Industries, and M/s Precision Rotogravure Pvt. Ltd. The department alleged that these units, engaged in manufacturing Flexible Packaging Machinery, availed incorrect exemptions u/s Notification No. 08/2003-CE, thereby evading Central Excise Duty by splitting their clearance value. The investigation revealed that all goods sold under the invoices of the four units were actually manufactured by M/s Precision Equipment Co. The Adjudicating authority ordered the clubbing of clearances and denied the benefits of SSI exemption. However, the Tribunal found that all units had separate and independent existence, with no financial flowback of funds, and thus, clubbing of clearances was not sustainable.

2. Denial of SSI Exemption:
The appellants argued that the denial of SSI exemption was erroneous as the units had different proprietors, separate locations, and distinct manufacturing facilities. The Tribunal noted that the units had separate registrations, bank accounts, and were assessed to income tax separately. The Tribunal held that the units were independent entities and their clearances could not be clubbed for the purpose of SSI exemption. The Tribunal relied on various judgments which supported the view that separate units with no mutuality of interest or financial flowback should not have their clearances clubbed.

3. Imposition of Central Excise Duty, Interest, and Penalties:
The Adjudicating authority confirmed a duty of Rs. 64,36,335/- with interest and an equal penalty against M/s Precision Equipment Co., along with a redemption fine of Rs. 1,69,68,930/- and personal penalties on the directors. The appellants contended that there was no justification for concentrating clearances on M/s Precision Equipment Co. alone. The Tribunal found no evidence of common books of accounts, common bank accounts, or financial flowback among the units, and thus, the imposition of duty and penalties was not justified.

4. Confiscation and Redemption Fine:
The Tribunal agreed with the appellants that confiscation and redemption fines were not imposable as the goods were not available for seizure. The Tribunal cited the Larger Bench's judgment in Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd., which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, stating that confiscation of non-seized goods is not legal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed all appeals, and granted consequential relief in accordance with the law.

(Pronounced in the open court on 23.04.2024)