2005 (7) TMI 388 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Clubbing of clearances of different units with UI for duty demand.
2. Differential duty demand based on sale price to Universal Sales Corporation.
3. Imposition of interest and penalty under Section 11AB and 11AC.
4. Confiscation under Rule 173Q(2).

Detailed Analysis:

Clubbing of Clearances:
The primary issue was whether the clearances of UI should be clubbed with other units like UCEC, UE, UEC, MT, and RHMCE for the purpose of duty calculation. Initially, the Commissioner had clubbed the clearances of five units with UI, but upon remand, the second Commissioner found one more unit to be independent, thereby weakening the department's view of a 'More Group' as a single entity.

The show cause notice detailed the constitution and operating periods of various units, revealing that UI was a proprietory concern of R.H. More, while other units were either proprietory concerns of other family members, partnerships, or private limited companies. The Commissioner's findings were criticized for gender bias, particularly in doubting the entrepreneurial capabilities of Ms. Deepal R. More due to her being a woman and a college student.

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not apply his mind afresh during the remand proceedings and exhibited a pre-determined mindset. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere presence of common individuals in different business entities does not justify clubbing their turnovers, especially when these entities were operating independently and some were even paying duty after crossing the exemption threshold.

Differential Duty Demand:
The demand of Rs. 1,79,645/- was based on the sale price to Universal Sales Corporation. The Tribunal noted that there was no specific finding to confirm this demand and accepted the appellant's submission that the prices charged were similar to those charged to other parties on a principal-to-principal basis. The Tribunal found no reason to uphold this demand as the department did not provide sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.

Imposition of Interest and Penalty:
Since the duty demands were not upheld, the Tribunal found no basis for imposing interest and penalties under Section 11AB and 11AC. The confiscation under Rule 173Q(2) was also set aside on merits.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the Commissioner's order, finding that the clubbing of clearances was unjustified, the differential duty demand was unsupported by evidence, and the imposition of interest, penalties, and confiscation was unwarranted. The judgment highlighted the need for unbiased and fresh application of mind in adjudication proceedings and condemned gender bias in administrative decisions.