1995 (3) TMI 224 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Alleged misrepresentation for availing exemption from excise duty by showing two factories as separate units, when they were actually one unit.

In the present case, M/s. Double Bee Enterprises and M/s. Filco Industries were aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 31-1-1985, passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of desert coolers and cooler cabinets, and it was alleged that they constituted one unit on paper to avail unauthorized double exemption of Central Excise duty. The Additional Collector demanded Central Excise duty, imposed a penalty, and redemption fine. Both appeals were heard together as they emerged from the same order. The appellants did not appear during the hearing, and the matter was decided based on written submissions and legal position. The respondent argued that the two units were actually one, misrepresenting to avail exemption. The appellants made general denials without providing evidence to challenge the findings. The Adjudicating Authority found that the two units were created on paper alone to evade Central Excise duty.

The Tribunal analyzed the facts and circumstances, noting that both units shared common premises, machinery, workers, and accounts. They had single integrated manufacturing facilities and purchases of raw materials were made at a single point. The Tribunal found that the two units were, in reality, one unit and had evaded Central Excise duty. The Tribunal referred to various legal precedents where similar situations were considered, emphasizing that separate registration with Sales Tax Department did not change the fact that the units were one entity. The Tribunal highlighted that the ordinary meaning of "premises" includes common connections and bills, indicating a lack of independence between the units. Considering all relevant factors, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals and rejected them.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of alleged misrepresentation for availing exemption from excise duty by showing two factories as separate units when they were actually one unit. The Tribunal found that the appellants had created two units on paper to evade Central Excise duty, sharing common facilities and lacking independence. The legal precedents cited supported the Tribunal's decision to reject the appeals based on the totality of circumstances and lack of evidence provided by the appellants to challenge the findings of the Adjudicating Authority.