2008 (1) TMI 725 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants waiver in dispute over separate manufacturing facilities, emphasizing company independence and duty exemptions.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the two companies had separate manufacturing facilities and activities, and there was ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - SSI Exemption Issues:- Clubbing of clearances of two companies for availing SSI exemption- Existence of separate manufacturing facilities and independent activities- Interpretation of Board's Circular No. 6/92 regarding limited companies- Consideration of mutuality of interest and control in determining manufacturer- Applicability of previous Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions on clubbing clearancesAnalysis:1. Clubbing of Clearances: The case involved the clubbing of clearances of two companies to determine eligibility for Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption. The Commissioner concluded that the companies were controlled by the same management and inter-dependent for funds and materials, leading to the denial of SSI exemption and imposition of duties and penalties.2. Separate Manufacturing Facilities: The appellant argued that both companies had independent manufacturing facilities, controlled products with appropriate licenses, and were producing goods on their own. The physical locations of the units in Thane and Nasik, under different commissionerates, further supported their independent existence.3. Interpretation of Circular No. 6/92: The appellant relied on Circular No. 6/92, emphasizing that limited companies are separate legal entities entitled to individual exemption limits. Previous Tribunal decisions, including Unity Industries v. CCE, supported the principle that clearances of limited companies should not be clubbed.4. Determining the Manufacturer: The issue of identifying the main manufacturer and the ownership relationship between the two units was crucial. The lack of clarity on which unit should be considered the actual manufacturer raised questions about the demand for duty from both companies separately.5. Applicability of Precedents: The appellant cited various Tribunal decisions and the Supreme Court case of Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. to argue that duty should only be demanded from the principal manufacturer if multiple units are involved. The differences in circumstances between cases were highlighted to support the appellant's position.6. Final Decision: The Tribunal acknowledged the independent existence of the two companies, their separate manufacturing activities, and the lack of clarity on the main manufacturer. Drawing a distinction from the Modi Alkalies case, where a clear main unit was identified, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties, considering the prima facie case made by the applicants.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the complexities of clubbing clearances for SSI exemption, the importance of separate legal entities in limited companies, and the need to establish the main manufacturer for duty demands. The Tribunal's decision to waive pre-deposit reflected a nuanced understanding of the specific circumstances and legal principles involved in the case.