1999 (9) TMI 512 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order-in-original regarding clubbing of production of two units for duty demand confirmation without issuing show cause notice to one unit.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals challenging an order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, confirming a duty demand of Rs. 1,15,206.08 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the Managing Partner. The issue revolves around the clubbing of production of two units, where one unit, M/s. Premier Paper Convertors, was not issued a show cause notice regarding the same. The appellant's advocate argued that tangible evidence, including the installation of a Cylinder Machine capable of functioning, contradicted the Collector's reliance on retracted statements. The absence of a show cause notice to M/s. Premier Paper Convertors was highlighted as a fatal flaw, citing a precedent where such omission vitiated proceedings.

The Departmental Representative contended that the order-in-original was detailed, emphasizing the belated retractions of statements and the discovery of unaccounted goods worth Rs. 80,000 during a visit to the premises. The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence, noting the retracted statements and the lack of conclusive proof regarding the production at M/s. Premier Paper Convertors. The absence of mutual interest or financial transactions between the units was observed. The Tribunal highlighted the capability of machinery at the other unit and the insufficiency of unaccounted goods at the appellant's premises to disprove production at M/s. Premier Paper Convertors. Notably, the judgment underscored the necessity of issuing show cause notices to all concerned units before clubbing their production for duty demand confirmation, citing a precedent to support this requirement.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order-in-original, allowing the appeals due to the department's failure to substantiate the clubbing of clearances from both units as the appellant's liability. The judgment emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence, the absence of financial interdependence between units, and the procedural requirement of issuing show cause notices to all relevant units before determining duty demands based on combined production. The decision rested on the insufficiency of evidence beyond retracted statements and the procedural irregularity of not notifying M/s. Premier Paper Convertors before attributing their production to the appellant.