Notification no. 8/2003

2009 TMI - 33519 - CESTAT BANGLORE  

RAO INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE  

Central Excise - Clubbing of clearances of both the units to deny SSI exemption - SCN proposed to club the clearances of both the units without identifying as to which is the real unit and which is the dummy unit - There should always be a correct identification of the real unit or the dummy unit. This has not been done. Both the Order-in-Original as well as the Order-in-Appeal had demanded the duty on both the partnership units - there is a fundamental flaw in the show cause notice as well as in the impugned order, which cannot be cured at this stage - impugned order set aside

2008 TMI - 31633 - CESTAT, CHENNAI  

COPIER FORCE INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI     

Central Excise - Clandestine removal - appellants had imported subassemblies and components of second-hand photocopiers - printouts of data retrieved from the CPUs seized - data showed transactions by appellants in the names of dummies also - MD is admitting the fact that goods were cleared without following Central Excise formalities and payment of duty - evasion of massive amounts of duty - clandestine activity proved - demand of duty is sustainable

2008 TMI - 31564 - CESTAT MUMBAI  

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PUNE-I Versus HARNIK FOOD INDUSTRIES   

Central Excise - Clubbing of clearances - Two units having common office - use same brand name, have same partners, have manufacturing premises in same block - units are held to be dummy unit - Circular dated 29-5-92 according to which each Limited Company is a manufacturer by itself and will be entitled to a separate exemption limit, will not apply to this case - hold that the clubbing of clearances is justified but confiscation of the land, building is set aside, as it is not a case of repeat offence

2008 TMI - 31333 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD  

KALPESH FOUNDERS & ENGINEERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. AHMEDABAD   

Central Excise - Appellants secretly showing its own production of C.I. castings in name of another company (M/s. Reliable) to remain in exemption limit of Rs. 1 crore - recovery of sale bills of another Industries from appellant's factory - M/s. Reliable Industries was not having any facility to manufacture of C.I. casting - both units are separate legal entities - question involved is not relatable to clubbing of clearances but to compute the clearances of the assessee - demand, interest, penalty is upheld

2008 TMI - 31135 - CESTAT BANGLORE  

COMMR. OF C. EX., MANGALORE Versus SUSHIL CHEMICALS  

Central Excise - SSI exemption - nine units belong to seven members of one/same family - SCN issued proposing clubbing of clearances - revenue not discharged that these units are dummy - Each of the 9 units is found to have separate Central Excise, Income Tax & Sales Tax registration with independent manufacturing capability - clubbing of clearance cannot be done mere for mutuality o interest among units - group of 9 units itself is not a legal entity - clubbing of clearances to raise demand is not sustainable

2008 TMI - 31129 - CESTAT MUMBAI  

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-V Versus ALEX INDUSTRIES  

Central Excise - SSI exemption - three units operating from the same premises having common plant and machinery, common staff etc. - the respondent have accepted the duty liability on behalf of all the three units as he has admitted to be controlling all the three units - appellant and his employees also admitted that no separate records were maintained in respect of production and storage of goods of the three units - clubbing of clearances to deny exemption is justified - revenue's appeal allowed

2008 TMI - 31121 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD  

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD-I Versus ARBUDA INDUSTRIES    

Central Excise - Two units availing the benefit of small scale exemption, in terms of Notification No. 8/98-C.E. - one unit owned by same person in his individual capacity and the other unit as karta of HUF - both the units have separate Income Tax PAN No., separate sales tax registration, separate professional tax registration, separate electricity meters etc. - revenue has not proved that the two units were not having independent existence, the clubbing of clearances is not appropriate

2008 TMI - 31119 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD  

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., VADODARA Versus TIGHTWELL FASTNERS  

Central Excise - SSI exemption - two units run by husband and wife - there is no intertwining of finances between the two units - Merely because husband is looking after the unit of his wife or broken common wall between the two units or having some of the common staff, it cannot be held that one unit is dummy unit- two units having their own finances, machinery to manufacture the goods - demand and penalty not sustainable

2008 TMI - 30884 - SUPREME COURT  

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAIPUR Versus ELECTRO MECHANICAL ENGG. CORPN.  

Central Excise - SSI exemption under Notification No.1/93 - respondent-companies submitted that all the three units were in existence and were independent of each other - flow back of money from one unit to another & mutuality of interest not proved by dept. - held that the respondents had disclosed all the material facts, as regards their constitution and functioning and it could not be said that they had suppressed any material facts - clubbing of clearances not justified - larger period not invokable

2008 TMI - 30726 - CESTAT NEW DELHI  

DIWAN SAHEB FASHIONS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-I  

Central Excise - Garment stitching - Fabrics, accessories and different brand labels for two units received from one unit and stitched at one place; so clearances of these three units are liable to be clubbed - conversion of fabrics into garments as per individual customer's measurements and specifications are excisable and, not eligible for exemption under Not. No. 76/86 - to prove marketability of goods it is not necessary that product must be sold in shop; sale to one person is sufficient

2008 TMI - 30359 - CESTAT NEW DELHI  

BOX & CARTON INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-IV    

Central Excise - SFP is just an extension of BCI and two units were being run as one unit only and the goods actually manufactured in BCI were being cleared through SFP without payment of duty, claiming SSI exemption - clubbing of clearances of BCI and SFP for the purpose of determining the aggregate value of clearances, is justified - demand is justified - since there is no proof of procurement of raw material by BCI or export sales by SFP, claim for reduction of demand is not allowed

2008 TMI - 30286 - CESTAT, CHENNAI  

KATRALLA PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COIMBATORE   

Central Excise - Appellants collected 10% of price as Central Excise duty from their customers even while availing SSI exemption - collection of extra amount as duty from their customers - any amount collected as duty of excise by any person from his buyer but not credited to the Exchequer could be recovered by department without the bar of limitation

 

Clubbing of clearances can deny SSI exemption where units function as a single enterprise through common control and records. Clubbing of clearances to deny SSI exemption depends on demonstration that distinct units operate as a single manufacturing concern: indicia include common management or partners, shared premises, common plant and machinery, combined staff, intermingled records, routing of production or sales through one unit, or clandestine removals. Revenue must identify which unit is real and which is dummy in show cause notices; absence of such identification or proof of lack of independent existence is a fatal flaw. Separate registrations, finances, meters and independent manufacturing capability rebut clubbing; proven clandestine removals or admitted noncompliance support duty demands and recovery of duty collected but not remitted.