2018 (9) TMI 1197 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants excise duty exemption to separate units of private companies

M/s. D.S. Doors (I) Limited, Shri D.S. Sharma, MD, Shri Dinesh Jangir Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Delhi -IV

M/s. D.S. Doors (I) Limited, Shri D.S. Sharma, MD, Shri Dinesh Jangir Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Delhi -IV - 2020 (371) E.L.T. 863 (Tri. ... Issues:1. Clubbing of clearances of two units for excise duty exemption eligibility2. Allegation of fake trading entries leading to duty liability3. Assessment of undervaluation charges on final goodsAnalysis:Clubbing of clearances:The case involved two private limited companies, both engaged in manufacturing similar products and availing SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/03-CE. The Revenue alleged that the units were controlled by the same individual and operated as one entity for tax evasion. However, the Tribunal found that the units were separate legal entities with distinct registrations, located over 20kms apart, and had separate factories. The Tribunal emphasized that mere common directors and statements from employees were insufficient to establish the units as one. As the units had separate registrations and operated independently, the Tribunal held that clubbing their clearances for denying SSI exemption lacked concrete evidence and was unsustainable.Fake trading entries and clandestine removal:The Revenue accused the appellants of showing fake trading entries in balance sheets, suggesting clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue itself admitted the entries were fake without providing evidence of actual production, input usage, or other manufacturing aspects. Without corroborative evidence on procurement, production, and consumption, the Tribunal held that the charge of clandestine removal based on fake entries was not sustainable. The benefit of doubt was given to the appellants as no substantial evidence was presented.Undervaluation charges:Regarding undervaluation allegations, the Revenue sought to include hardware, labor, and polishing charges in the assessable value of goods. The Tribunal observed that certain post-clearance activities like hardware fitting and polishing done at the buyer's site were part of immovable property and not part of the assessable value. As these activities were conducted post-clearance, they could not be considered for valuation purposes. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the charge of undervaluation was not valid against the appellants.In conclusion, as the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants on all issues, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed with any consequential relief deemed necessary.