SSI exemption on factory-level clearances denied where loan licence manufacture used the same infrastructure and threshold was crossed.

SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE was unavailable where veterinary medicaments were manufactured on loan licence basis in the same factory using the same infrastructure, because aggregate clearances had to be tested at the factory level and the threshold had already been crossed. The duty demand was therefore sustained. The extended period of limitation was invocable because the assessees did not disclose the material fact that exemption was being claimed despite factory-level turnover exceeding the limit, amounting to suppression of facts. Penalties were upheld against the appellant units, reduced for M/s. Makam Pharmachem, and not sustained against individual partners or directors absent specific evidence of their role.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants, manufacturing veterinary medicaments on loan licence basis in the premises of another unit, were entitled to Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation was invocable; (iii) whether penalties were imposable on the appellant units and connected persons.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants, manufacturing veterinary medicaments on loan licence basis in the premises of another unit, were entitled to Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003.

Analysis: The exemption was examined in the context of the condition that aggregate clearances from one factory, whether by one or more manufacturers, must stay within the prescribed limit. The record showed that the veterinary medicaments for all the units were manufactured in the premises of M/s. Makam Pharmachem using the same infrastructure, plant and machinery, and that the turnover of that factory had already crossed the exemption threshold. The loan licence arrangement did not alter the fact that the same factory infrastructure was used for manufacture for multiple manufacturers. The valuation of notified goods was also required to be taken on the basis of section 4A valuation.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to SSI exemption beyond the prescribed limit, and the demand was sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Analysis: The appellants had filed returns, but the material fact that SSI exemption was being availed despite the factory-level aggregate turnover having already exceeded the limit was not disclosed. The Tribunal treated this as suppression of material facts relevant to duty liability.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties were imposable on the appellant units and connected persons.

Analysis: Penalty was sustained against the units that continued clearances without duty after crossing the exemption threshold. As regards M/s. Makam Pharmachem, the penalty was reduced in view of the overall circumstances. Penalties on individual partners/directors were not sustained for want of specific evidence of individual role.

Conclusion: Penalty was upheld against the appellant units, reduced for M/s. Makam Pharmachem, and set aside for the partners/directors.

Final Conclusion: The common exemption plea failed, the duty demand with interest was sustained against the main appellant units, the limitation objection was rejected, and the penalty outcome was modified only to the extent indicated above.

Ratio Decidendi: For SSI exemption, clearances are to be tested at the factory level under the notification conditions, and use of the same manufacturing infrastructure by multiple loan licencees does not create separate exemption entitlements where the aggregate clearances from that factory have crossed the prescribed limit.

---