TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 376
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93. 3. While assailing the impugned order, learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order apparently discloses total non-application of mind by the appellate authority to the various points which were canvassed before it and also that it is a totally non-speaking order. On another hand, it was submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no case for interference in the impugned order. 4. Bare perusal of the impugned order discloses that after summarising the facts of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded to dispose of the matter by recording thus - "I have carefully gone through the Appeal filed by the Appellants and have noticed it a matter of clubbing the value of clearances of M/s. Royal Polymers, Agra & M/s. Premier Plastics, Agra. On behalf of the Appellants, Shri B.C. Saksena, Consultant appeared in personal hearing on 11-10-01 and 26-7-04, he submitted a written statement he stressed that Section 11AC can not be invoked in this case as Section 11AC is not attracted prior to 28-9-96. Shri B.C. Saksena, Consultant made various citations in support of the Appeal which were also considered. On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e can effectively persue the matter before the appellate authority. Failure on the part of the authority to record reasons would result in injustice to the aggrieved party. 10. A Commissioner (Appeals), while dealing an appeal against the order passed by the subordinate authority, should always remember that it is also a court of facts. While deciding a matter, it has to consider every fact on record, for and against the assessee, and has to give its findings in a manner which would clearly indicate the questions which had arisen for determination, the evidence on record that has considered and the reasonings applied for arriving at the conclusions which have been arrived at. The conclusions arrived at should not be allowed to be in any manner influenced by irrelevant and extraneous considerations. The same should be logical conclusions and should reflect the rational analysis of all the materials on records by any prudent adjudicator. 11. In Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Excise, Pune reported in 2006 (203) E.L.T. 360 (S.C.), it was clearly ruled that - "By cryptic and non-speaking order, the Tribunal has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 29-5-92 which reads thus - Value of clearances — Clubbing of Circular No. 6/92, dated 29-5-1992 [From F. No. 213/15/1992-CX. 6] Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi Subject : Clubbing of clearances of various firms - Different firms to be treated as different manufacturers for exemption limit - Regarding. The issue of clubbing of clearances of various firms to arrive at the aggregate value of clearances for the purposes of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 has been examined by the Board. Similar issue was also examined in the past for the purposes of regulating the exemption from duty granted under the Notification No. CER 8(5)-Central Excise, dated 1-3-1956 as under :— (i) Different firms will be treated as different manufacturers for the purpose of the exemption limit. But if a firm consisting of certain partners say, A, B, & C has got more than one factory, all these factories should, of course, be combined. Limited companies whether public or private are separate entities distinct from shareholders composing it. Hence each limited company is a manufacturer by itsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....limit and hence the question of distributing the exemption may not arise. If one firm or one individual owns several factories, he or it gets exemption only in respect of one lot and the manufacturer being only one entity, there will be no question of distributing the exemption. Whether or not in the expression 'by or on behalf of a manufacturer' the expression 'from one or more factories' is added, the effect would be the same if the manufacturer is also the same. The expression 'one or more factories' only further clarified that whether the factory is one or more, it is the clearances by or on behalf of the same manufacturer which is to be taken into consideration for purpose of interpreting the exemption Notification. The matter requires to be viewed accordingly. The Board had then felt the position as mentioned 2. above including in respect of Notification No. CER-8(5)-C.E., dated 1-3-1956 was sufficient to deal with the interpretation under Notification No. 176/77, dated 18-6-1977. Now in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), for the purpose of ensuring uniformity of levy of duties of excise, the Central Board of ....