TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 rules in favor of appellants, overturning impugned order on various issues.</h1> <h3>M/s Spacetech Equipments & Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Gautam Ghosh, Ganesh Chandra Ghosh Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Thane-I</h3> M/s Spacetech Equipments & Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Gautam Ghosh, Ganesh Chandra Ghosh Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Thane-I - TMI Issues Involved:1. Clubbing of clearances of the appellant's unit with two proprietorship concerns.2. Denial of benefit under Notifications Nos. 175/86 and 1/93.3. Inclusion of chassis value in the clearance value for SSI benefit.4. Imposition of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.5. Imposition of penalty under erstwhile Rule 173Q and Section 11AC.6. Confiscation of land, building, plant, and machinery under Rule 173Q(2).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Clubbing of Clearances:The main issue in these appeals pertains to the clubbing of clearances of the appellant's unit with two proprietorship concerns, Industrial Engineering Company (IEC) and Rashmi Shellcast & Foundry (RSF). The Central Excise department contended that both IEC and RSF belonged to the appellant M/s SESPL, thus exceeding the eligibility criteria for the benefit under Notification Nos. 175/86 and 1/93. The Tribunal found that the appellant, being a private limited company, cannot have its clearances clubbed with those of proprietorship concerns as per the principles laid down by the CBEC in Circular No. 6/92 dated 29.05.1992. The Tribunal referred to judgments in cases such as Supreme Washers (P) Ltd., L.D. Industries, and Limca Flavours & Fragrances Ltd., which support the appellant's contention that clearances of a private limited company cannot be clubbed with those of proprietorship firms.2. Denial of Benefit under Notifications Nos. 175/86 and 1/93:The Tribunal noted that the appellant should be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 for the clearances effected prior to 01.04.1993, as the clearances of a private limited company cannot be clubbed with those of proprietorship concerns. The impugned order's denial of this benefit was found to lack merit.3. Inclusion of Chassis Value in Clearance Value:The Tribunal found that the value of clearances for the relevant period was wrongly arrived at by including the value of the chassis for the LPG tanks manufactured by the appellant. As per Notification No. 241/86-C.E. and the circular dated 04.09.1986 issued by CBEC, the value of the chassis should be excluded from the value of the final product. The Tribunal noted that the department had excluded the value of the chassis in earlier computations, and thus, the impugned order's inclusion of the chassis value was incorrect.4. Imposition of Interest under Section 11AB:The Tribunal held that the interest liability under Section 11AB, inserted w.e.f. 28.09.1996, cannot be applied retrospectively to the period in dispute (1989-90 to 1992-93). The Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment in the case of Dev Ashish supported this view, stating that Section 11AB is penal in nature and applies only to clearances made after its effective date.5. Imposition of Penalty under erstwhile Rule 173Q and Section 11AC:The Tribunal found that the provisions of Section 11AC, inserted w.e.f. 28.09.1996, cannot be invoked for the period prior to its enactment. The impugned order's imposition of penalties under erstwhile Rule 173Q and Section 11AC was thus unsustainable.6. Confiscation of Land, Building, Plant, and Machinery:The Tribunal noted that Rule 173Q (2) was omitted by notification dated 12.05.2000, and thus, the confiscation order passed after this date should not be guided by the provisions of the omitted rule. The judgments in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Choice Ceramics Tiles Pvt. Ltd. supported this view, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the confiscation and redemption fine imposed were not valid.Conclusion:The Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority. The appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order.
TaxTMI 