1993 (8) TMI 183 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Whether the clearances of four appellants are to be clubbed together as contended by the Department, and whether the units are independent with separate manufacturing facilities.

Clubbing of Clearances: The Department claimed that all units were controlled by the same family, located adjacent to each other, sold goods under a common brand name and code numbers, funded by the same family, and had common supervision over marketing. The appellants argued that only 10% of funds were provided by the family, but the source of initial capital for all units was common. They contended that the test of 'mutuality' was wrongly invoked by the Collector, which is relevant for valuation, not clubbing.

Contradictory Orders: The Collector had passed contradictory orders on the same issue for different periods, concluding that for the period in question, there was common financial involvement for the four units. It was noted that in taxation matters, there is no res judicata, and previous decisions can be departed from based on new evidence.

Legal Precedents: The appellants cited Tribunal judgments regarding commonness of Directors/Partners not being sufficient for clubbing clearances of various units. The Collector referenced a Supreme Court decision where a Public Ltd. Company and a Registered Partnership firm with common Directors/Partners were not treated as manufacturing goods for each other unless there was evidence of control or supervision.

Common Control and Supervision: The Tribunal found that there was common funding, control, and supervision over all four units by the head of the family, who provided initial capital for all units. The units shared infrastructural facilities, were managed by the same individuals, had common code numbers, sales network, and pricing, indicating a lack of genuine independence.

Decision: Considering the totality of circumstances and legal precedents, the Tribunal upheld the clubbing of clearances for the four units. Duty was also demanded for certain quantity inputs/finished goods found short, which the appellants had agreed to pay. Consequently, all four appeals were rejected.