9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tories, he or it gets exemption only in respect of one lot and the manufacturer being only one entity there will be no question of distributing the exemption. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the appeal in accordance with provisions of law taking into consideration - E/665-667/2005 - 1394-1396/2009-EX(PB), - Dated:- 12-11-2009 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) S/Shri L.P. Asthana with Abhishek Jaju, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri P.K. Singh, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Oral)]. - Heard learned Advocate for the appellant and learned DR for the respondent. Since common question of law and facts arise in all these three appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These appeals arise from common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Kanpur on 20-9-04. By the impugned order, the appeals filed by the appellants against the order of the adjudicating authority have been dismissed. The adjudicating authority namely Joint Commissioner, Kanpur by the orders dated 8-9-2000 had confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the right to enjoy the benefit under exemption notification and consequently the duty liability. 7. Perusal of the impugned order, it not only discloses that the Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of the matter by passing a totally non-speaking order, but it also discloses total absence of application of mind to the matte in issue. The authority has not even bothered to consider the points which the authority was required to consider before deciding the matter. 8. Needless to say that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) can be subjected to further appeal before the Tribunal. Every appellate authority is entitled to know the grounds on which the lower authority has disposed the matter. It is, therefore, necessary for the Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing the matter to record the reasons for taking the view that he or she takes in relation to the issues which are sought to be raised in the matter under consideration. The law in that regard is well settled. 9. The recording of reasons while disposing of a matter is also necessary for the benefit of the aggrieved party. When a statute ensures the right of appeal, the aggrieved party is entitled to know the reasons f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the matter of Supreme Washers (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Pune reported in 2003 (151) E.L.T. 14 wherein the Apex Court held that :- "In regard to the second, contention of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 6161 of 1999, it is seen from the Circular dated 1-3-1956, which according to the appellants have been reiterated by another subsequent Circular No. 6/92, dated 29th of May, 1992 by the Central Board of Excise Customs, New Delhi that a limited company should be treated as a separate entity for the purpose of exemption limit. If that be the position in law, then there may be some justification for the appellant to urge, so far as M/s. Supreme Washers (P) Ltd. is concerned, it being a limited company, its production cannot be clubbed with the other units. However, since this aspect of the case and applicability of the Circulars referred herein above was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal we are in agreement with the suggestion made by the learned Attorney General that it will be just and proper to remand this matter, for this limited purpose, to the Tribunal for examining the applicability of the Circular relied upon by the Appellants, M/s. Supreme Washers (P) Ltd." 14. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a person who manufacturers and this applies with greater appropriateness in the context, to a firm engaged in manufacture, than to the individual partners composing it. To the same effect was the view expressed by Kerala High Court in Rice Oils Mills Partnership Firm v. Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise, Trichirapally (1960 KL 1087). The question whether different partnerships having common partners, are treatable as separate manufacturers of the same manufacturer, would be a question of fact in each case to be determined on the basis of such factors among other, like composition of the partnership, existence of the factory, licence, nature of goods manufactured etc. Different firms will be treated as different manufacturers for the purpose of exemption limit. But if a firm consisting of certain partners say A. B. C. has got more than one factory, all these factories should, of course, be combined. Limited companies whether public or private, are separate entities distinct from the shareholders composing it. Hence each limited company is a manufacturer by itself and will be entitled to a separate exemption limit. If there are two firms with only some of the partners in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory, all these factories should of course be combined. Limited companies whether public or private are separate entities distinct from the shareholders composing it. Hence each limited company is a manufacturer by itself and will be entitled to a separate exemption limit. (iii) If there are two firms with only some of the partners in common, each firm is entitled to separate exemption limit and hence the question of distributing the exemption may not arise. If one firm or individual owns several factories he or it gets exemption only in respect of one individual owns several factories, he or it gets exemption only in respect of one lot and the manufacturer being only one entity there will be no question of distributing the exemption. (iv) Whether or not in the expression 'by or on behalf of a manufacturer' the expression 'from one or more factories' is added, the effect would be the same if the manufacturer is also the same. The expression 'one or more factories' only further clarifies that whether the factory is one or more, it is the clearances by or on behalf of the same manufacturer which is to be taken into consideration for purposes of interpreting the exemption not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
