Impugned order set aside, matter remanded for re-quantification of duty liability. Penalties to be imposed accordingly.

The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for re-quantification of the duty liability in line with the Tribunal's observations. Penalties under section 11AC on RPM and under Rule 209A on Shri Pradeep Kumar Goel would be imposed according to the re-quantified duty demand.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Clubbing of clearances for SSI exemption.
2. Valuation of goods bearing brand names TVS and Rane.
3. Quantum of goods produced and cleared.
4. Confiscation and penalties imposed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Clubbing of Clearances for SSI Exemption:
The department alleged that RPM Auto (RPM) and PEE KAY Enterprises (PKE) were controlled by the same family and their clearances should be clubbed to determine SSI exemption eligibility. However, the Commissioner found no independent evidence to support the assertion that accounts were maintained jointly for both units. Thus, the clubbing ceased to be an issue as there was no way to attribute production to either factory specifically.

2. Valuation of Goods Bearing Brand Names TVS and Rane:
The Commissioner denied SSI exemption for brake linings cleared under the brand names TVS and Rane and adopted the value based on the price lists of the brand name owners after a 40% discount. The appellants argued that these were duplicate goods and should not be valued at the same price as genuine goods sold by the brand owners. The Tribunal agreed, stating there was no justification to value these duplicate brake linings at the price at which such goods were sold by the brand name owners.

3. Quantum of Goods Produced and Cleared:
The department alleged underreporting of actual production, treating the figures in the registers seized from RPM as sets of brake linings (each set consisting of eight brake linings). The appellants contended that the figures represented individual brake linings, not sets. The Tribunal found no evidence in the registers to infer production in sets and noted the retraction of the initial statement by Shri Pradeep Kumar Goel. Without corroborative evidence, the Tribunal held that the production recorded in the registers should be treated as individual brake linings, not sets.

4. Confiscation and Penalties Imposed:
The Commissioner had ordered the confiscation of seized goods and imposed penalties under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal directed re-quantification of the duty liability based on the correct valuation and quantum of goods, and stated that penalties should be imposed accordingly.

Conclusion:
The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for re-quantification of the duty liability in line with the Tribunal's observations. The penalties under section 11AC on RPM and under Rule 209A on Shri Pradeep Kumar Goel would be according to the re-quantified duty demand.

---