1998 (4) TMI 321 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise: Duty Demand on Battery Chargers Upheld with Penalties and Confiscation

CHABBI ELECTRICALS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

The Collector of Central Excise confirmed the demand of duty on battery chargers and fabricated items cleared from multiple factory premises, invoking ... SSI Exemption - Value of clearances Issues:1. Confirmation of demand of duty on battery chargers and fabricated items.2. Confiscation of battery chargers and imposition of penalties.3. Interpretation of Notification No. 46/81 and Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948.4. Claiming exemption under Notification No. 178/85.5. Clubbing of clearances of multiple units.Confirmation of Demand of Duty:The Collector of Central Excise confirmed the demand of duty on battery chargers and fabricated items cleared from multiple factory premises during a specific period. The order invoked Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules along with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Additionally, penalties and confiscation of goods were imposed based on the findings.Confiscation and Penalties:The Collector ordered the confiscation of battery chargers and imposed penalties on individuals associated with the units under Rule 173Q. Penalties were levied on directors and trustees of the units for non-compliance with Central Excise regulations.Interpretation of Notifications and Acts:The appellant units claimed exemption under Notification No. 46/81, dated 1-3-1981, which exempts specific goods from excise duty. The argument revolved around the definition of 'factory' under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948, to determine eligibility for the exemption. However, based on evidence of common record-keeping and shared management across units, the benefit of the notification was denied.Exemption Claim under Notification No. 178/85:The appellants also sought exemption under Notification No. 178/85, dated 1-8-1985, which provided duty exemption for the first clearances of specific goods. However, the claim was rejected based on the consolidated findings related to the units' operations and management structure.Clubbing of Clearances:The decision addressed the issue of clubbing clearances of multiple units due to shared infrastructure, management, and common production processes. Citing precedent from a Tribunal case, the judgment upheld the clubbing of clearances for units under common control, leading to the dismissal of the appeals filed by the appellants.---