Tribunal rejects clubbing clearances, penalties set aside. Impugned order modified.

The Tribunal concluded that the demand for clubbing the clearances of M/s PEEPL with M/s JRSE was not sustainable due to a lack of substantial evidence. Consequently, penalties imposed on the Appellants were also set aside. The impugned order was modified, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Manufacturing and clearance of goods by M/s Prints Electronics Equipments Pvt. Ltd. (PEEPL) and M/s J.R.S. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (JRSE).
2. Clubbing of clearances of M/s PEEPL with M/s JRSE.
3. Alleged clandestine clearance of goods.
4. Validity of the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner at Mumbai.
5. Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Manufacturing and Clearance of Goods by M/s PEEPL and M/s JRSE:

The Appellant, M/s PEEPL, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods such as Electronics Attendance Recorder and Access Control System, availed small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. The factory was at Malad, Mumbai, and the administrative office at Vadala, Mumbai. M/s JRSE, situated in the same industrial estate as M/s PEEPL's administrative office, also manufactured similar goods but had a factory in Bangalore.

2. Clubbing of Clearances of M/s PEEPL with M/s JRSE:

The Department alleged that M/s PEEPL clandestinely cleared goods under M/s JRSE's invoices, thus, the clearances should be clubbed. The Appellant argued that M/s JRSE was an independent unit with no mutual interest or financial flow back between the companies. The Tribunal found no evidence of mutual interest or control, and thus, clubbing of clearances was deemed unsustainable.

3. Alleged Clandestine Clearance of Goods:

The Department's allegations were based on the visit to M/s JRSE's Bangalore factory, which reportedly lacked manufacturing equipment and technical manpower. Statements from M/s JRSE's Technical Director and an employee suggested that goods were not manufactured at Bangalore. The Tribunal noted the absence of substantial evidence proving that goods were manufactured at M/s PEEPL and cleared under M/s JRSE's invoices.

4. Validity of the Show Cause Notice Issued by the Commissioner at Mumbai:

The Appellant contended that even if goods were cleared under M/s JRSE's invoices, the situs for levy and collection of duty was Bangalore, making the show cause notice by the Mumbai Commissioner beyond jurisdiction. The Tribunal did not find sufficient grounds to uphold the notice issued by the Mumbai Commissioner.

5. Imposition of Penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002:

Penalties were imposed on M/s JRSE under Rule 26, alleging that they had no manufacturing setup and that M/s PEEPL used their invoices for clearance. The Tribunal found that M/s JRSE had provided sufficient evidence of manufacturing activities at Bangalore, including a certificate from the Karnataka Director of Industries & Commerce and various records. Thus, the penalties were deemed unwarranted and set aside.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the demand for clubbing the clearances of M/s PEEPL with M/s JRSE was not sustainable due to a lack of substantial evidence. Consequently, penalties imposed on the Appellants were also set aside. The impugned order was modified, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---