TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns Commissioner's decision, affirms Arasan Company Firm as sole manufacturer</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeals of Revenue, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and restoring the original adjudication order. It was ... Denial of SSI Exemption - Dummy unit - Use other's brand name - held that:- When the record itself indicates categorical statements recorded from different persons under Section 14 of Central Excise Act against assessee and there was one man show which is evident from different materials gathered by Revenue, both the units are exposed to be dummies of ACF. - Revenue has also brought out that there is certificate issued Consulting Engineer to the effect that SA had no manufacturing facility for manufacture of trailers on record. That is established from record which was not examined by Commissioner (Appeals). The order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is therefore liable to be interfered and set aside. - Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues Involved:1. Seizure of trailer RG 176 and its inference on manufacturing by Arasan Company Firm (ACF).2. Independent manufacturing status of M/s. Rajagiri & Co. (RG) and Saradha Agency (SA).3. Common managerial or financial control among ACF and other units, and existence of financial flow-back or mutual funding.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Seizure of Trailer RG 176:The first issue examined whether the seizure of trailer RG 176 parked at ACF's premises implied that ACF manufactured the trailer. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that merely parking the trailer at ACF did not establish ACF as the manufacturer. However, this conclusion ignored substantial evidence presented by Revenue, including the lack of manufacturing facilities at RG, statements from various individuals indicating ACF's involvement in manufacturing, and the fact that ACF supplied the tractor and brought the trailer to its premises. The inference drawn was that ACF was indeed the manufacturer of the excisable goods, as it provided space for the trailer and facilitated its presence on its premises.2. Independent Manufacturing Status of RG and SA:The second issue assessed whether RG and SA were independent manufacturers. Revenue argued that raw materials were parked at ACF, and mere book entries were made to show clearance to other units without actual manufacturing facilities. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded there was no basis for the allegation, but Revenue contended that this conclusion was unsustainable due to the lack of manufacturing facilities at RG and SA. Evidence showed that RG and SA did not have the necessary equipment or premises for manufacturing, reinforcing the argument that they were not independent manufacturers.3. Common Managerial or Financial Control:The third issue involved examining if ACF exercised common managerial or financial control over RG and SA and if there was any financial flow-back or mutual funding. Revenue's grievance highlighted that the entire operation was a one-man show by Shri Natesan, with substantial evidence indicating interconnected operations among the units. Statements from various individuals and documents showed common procurement of raw materials, shared managerial staff, and financial control by ACF. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for ignoring these facts and basing his conclusion on isolated evidence. Revenue provided detailed grounds, including statements from individuals and comparisons with similar cases, to demonstrate that RG and SA were dummy units created to evade duty by availing SSI exemption.Conclusion:The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not adequately considered the totality of evidence and circumstances, which clearly indicated that ACF, RG, and SA were functioning as a single manufacturing entity under common control. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the original adjudication order was restored, confirming that ACF was the manufacturer and RG and SA were not independent entities. The appeals of Revenue were allowed, emphasizing the interconnected operations and managerial control by ACF.Final Order:The appeals of Revenue were allowed, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the original adjudication order was restored. The Tribunal concluded that ACF, RG, and SA were not separate entities but functioned as a single manufacturing entity under the control of ACF.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
