2018 (8) TMI 1004 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - clubbing of clearances - Held that - In the present case the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any findings on merit rather the Commissioner has relied upon the earlier Order-in-Original No. 8/2006 dated 05.05.2006 whereby the Commissioner confirmed the demand by holding that M/s. Max Rubber Company has no independent existence - Further the said Order-in-Original No. 8/2006 dated 05.05.2006 on the basis of which the present cases were decided has already been set aside by the Tribunal vide its Final Order Nos. 561 - 563/2010 dated 03.02.2010 and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. Matter remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication after following the principles of natural justice - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against common impugned order - Identical issue in all appeals.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing conveyor/transmission belts and rubber sheets, filed nine appeals against a common impugned order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the Commissioner. The issue in all appeals was identical, so they were disposed of by a common order. The case originated from a search conducted by DGCEI officers at the factory of the appellant and another concern, M/s. Max Rubber. The investigation led to a show-cause notice alleging that Max Rubber Company was created to clear goods manufactured at the appellant's factory clandestinely. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, clubbed the clearances of both companies in an order dated 05.05.2006. The appellant challenged this order, leading to a series of litigations and remands by the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that the impugned order lacked merit and relied solely on the earlier order, which had been set aside and remanded twice by the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The appellant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide any findings on merit but based the decision on the previously set-aside order. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the impugned order was unsustainable due to the lack of merit-based findings. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh adjudication following the principles of natural justice. All appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a proper reconsideration of the issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the impugned order lacked merit-based findings and had relied on a previously set-aside order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication by the Commissioner (Appeals) following the principles of natural justice. This decision highlights the importance of providing substantive reasoning in legal judgments and ensuring due process in administrative proceedings.