Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the five units were separate and independent manufacturing entities entitled to the benefit of the small scale exemption, or whether their clearances were liable to be clubbed on the ground that they were fragmented units created to evade central excise duty.
Analysis: The common ownership by close relatives, absence of regular independent labour, shared use of machinery and facilities, lack of separate electricity arrangements, contradictory statements of the persons in control, and the attempted alteration of the lease deed all pointed to a single integrated manufacturing arrangement rather than genuinely independent units. The evidence also showed that one unit played the leading role in procurement, production and clearance, and that the other units lacked adequate independent machinery and infrastructure to manufacture the goods on their own. In these circumstances, the benefit of the exemption notification was not available, as the arrangement was a device to split production and avail duty exemption.
Conclusion: The units were rightly treated as fragmented units, the clearances were validly clubbed, and the demand, confiscation and penalties were sustained against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: Where surrounding circumstances show that ostensibly separate units are ually under common control and are created or operated as a device to split production and obtain an exemption, the authorities may club their clearances and deny the exemption.