2001 (11) TMI 109 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns duty demand & penalties, upholds job work charges, remands for quantification.

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order confirming duty demand and penalties based on clubbing of clearances and allegations of clandestine ... SSI Exemption - Demand Issues Involved:1. Clubbing of clearances.2. Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal of goods.3. Duty on job work charges.Summary:1. Clubbing of Clearances:The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand on appellant No. 1 by clubbing its clearances with those of M/s. Jindal Packaging and M/s. Plas Packaging. The grounds for clubbing included inter-se relationships among partners, inter-se financial transactions, and shared resources like generators and office records. However, the Tribunal found that the inter-se relationship and financial transactions did not prove that the units constituted a single manufacturing entity. The units had independent registrations under sales tax, income-tax, and the Excise Act, and maintained separate books of accounts. The Tribunal cited several precedents, including *Jagjivandas & Co.*, *Pimpri Gases*, and *Alpha Toyo Ltd.*, to support the view that mutual financial transactions and related partnerships do not necessarily imply a single manufacturing unit. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order on this ground.2. Allegations of Clandestine Manufacture and Removal of Goods:The Commissioner based the allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal on invoices found at the residence of Sri Chand Gupta, appellant, which were addressed to fictitious firms. However, the Tribunal found no cogent evidence to substantiate these allegations. No partner or employee of the firms that issued the invoices was examined, and no buyer of the final product was identified to establish clandestine sales. The Tribunal concluded that the findings were based on assumptions rather than tangible evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order on this ground as well.3. Duty on Job Work Charges:The duty liability on job work charges billed by the appellants was not seriously contested. The learned counsel only disputed the correctness of the amount collected as job charges and the quantum of duty payable. The Tribunal found it difficult to ascertain the exact duty amount from the record and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for quantification after hearing the appellants.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order confirming the duty demand and penalties on the grounds of clubbing and alleged clandestine clearances. However, it upheld the duty liability on job work charges and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for quantifying the exact duty amount. The appeals were allowed in part, with consequential relief as permissible under the law.