1994 (9) TMI 184 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Stay application based on violation of natural justice; Classification of two units as separate entities; Alleged violation of principles of natural justice by the Collector (Appeals); Determination of eligibility for exemption notification based on relationship between holding and subsidiary company.

Analysis:
The appellants filed a stay application challenging the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) based on the violation of natural justice principles. The show cause notice did not disclose the material or reasons for the charges against them, leading to the argument that natural justice was not observed. The Assistant Collector's order in 1989 was based on a previous order by the Collector (Appeals), which was later set aside by the Tribunal (CEGAT) due to a lack of natural justice. Subsequently, the Assistant Collector passed another order in 1990, recognizing M/s. Pudumjee Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. and M/s. F. Pudumjee and Co. as independent units, considering various factual aspects and case law cited by the appellants.

The appellants contended that the relationship between the two units should not affect their eligibility for exemption notification, citing legal precedents emphasizing the separate legal personalities of public limited companies. They argued that mere shareholding percentages do not determine ownership or control over a company. The department, however, maintained that during the relevant period, one company held a controlling position over the other due to shareholding, justifying their action. The Collector (Appeals) referred to certificates produced by the appellants' Solicitors and Chartered Accountant in making his decision.

The Tribunal noted that the appellants were not given an effective opportunity to address the main issue during the limited hearing before the Collector (Appeals). Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of the disputed amount. With the consent of both parties, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Collector (Appeals) for fresh consideration, directing him to provide the appellants with a full opportunity to present their case on merits. The Tribunal also addressed the detention of goods by the department, clarifying that the stay granted in the appeal rendered the detention order obsolete, and the goods should be released accordingly.