1995 (3) TMI 210 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification 175/86 regarding clubbing clearances of two units of the same manufacturer for duty liability.
2. Whether duty liability can be discharged separately by each unit even if owned by the same manufacturer.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras involved the interpretation of Notification 175/86 concerning the clubbing of clearances of two units of the same manufacturer for duty liability. The appellant had two units, one in Coimbatore and the other in Bhoothangudi, Tanjore District, manufacturing excisable goods. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise directing the clubbing of clearances from both units for duty liability. The appellant argued that each unit, separately licensed under the Central Excises & Salt Act, should be allowed to discharge duty liability by making debit entries in the RG 23 Part II for Modvat Credit earned by each unit. The Tribunal agreed that while clearances should be clubbed for duty assessment, each unit should be allowed to discharge its separate duty liability if Modvat Credit is available in RG 23 Part I. Thus, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In a separate order by Member (T), it was noted that the authorities had erred in raising the duty demand against only one unit. The two units were separately licensed, and their clearances were to be considered individually, except for clubbing purposes under Notification 175/86. The duty liability for each unit should have been quantified separately, taking into account the clearances from each unit and the Modvat Credit available to each unit. The demand raised against one unit for duty payable by both units was incorrect. The Member (T) emphasized that duty payment by each respective unit should be allowed, considering the clearances made by each unit and the Modvat Credit available to them from RG 23 Part I. Therefore, the plea of the appellant for separate payment of duty by each unit was upheld.