1995 (12) TMI 113 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the production of two sheds should be clubbed for determining exemption eligibility.
2. Validity of separate registration under the Shop and Establishment Act.
3. Applicability of previous Tribunal order in the current case.

Analysis:
1. The appeal revolved around whether the production of two sheds needed to be combined to determine eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 46/81. The Tribunal had previously upheld the department's stance on clubbing the production but reduced the penalty. The appellant argued that after obtaining a Certificate of Registration under the Shop and Establishment Act for shed No. 84, the production of the two sheds should not be clubbed. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide evidence to support the separate entity status of shed No. 84.

2. The issue of separate registration under the Shop and Establishment Act was crucial. Despite obtaining a registration certificate for shed No. 84, the Tribunal found that the appellant did not substantiate the independent character of the unit at shed No. 84. The Tribunal highlighted various pieces of evidence, such as shared accounts, invoices, and tax registrations, indicating that the sheds were considered one entity for a significant period.

3. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of previous judicial decisions in similar cases. Referring to its own order in the appellant's prior case, the Tribunal concluded that the issue of clubbing production and the impact of obtaining a certificate under the Shop and Establishment Act had already been addressed. The Tribunal noted that the facts presented in the current appeal did not contradict those in the previous orders. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the department's decision, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments and confirming the lower authorities' orders.