TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....On the basis of investigation, the Central Excise department contended that both IEC and RSF belonged to the appellant M/s SESPL and as such, the benefit of Notification Nos. 175/86 dated 01.03.1986 and 1/93 dated 01.03.1993 should not be available inasmuch as the combined turnover of all the three units during the disputed period had exceeded the eligibility criteria of Rs. 200/300 Lacs. Accordingly, show cause proceedings were initiated vide notice dated 03.10.1994 against the appellant's unit, Shri Ganesh C. Ghosh, Managing Director and Shri Gautam Ghosh, Director of the appellant company, seeking for confirmation of the duty demand and for imposition of penalties. 1.3 The show cause notices were adjudicated vide order dated 15.06.1998, wherein the proposed demands were confirmed, holding that the three units of the same company were not independent entities separately, but were manufacturing the goods only for the appellant's company. The order dated 15.06.1998 was appealed against before the Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.05.2005 by way of remand to the original authority for a fresh fact finding on the issue of clubbing of clearances in light wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tity, it cannot be said that the proprietorship firms are the units belonged to the appellant company. Further, the learned Advocate also submitted that the appellant being a private limited company, its clearances cannot be clubbed with the clearances of the proprietorship concerns. In this context, he has relied upon the Circular No. 6/92 dated 29.05.1992 issued by the CBEC. He has also relied upon the following judgments, to state that clearance value of the proprietorship firm cannot be clubbed with the clearance value of a private limited company for denying the duty exemption provided under the notification dated 01.03.1986: (i) Parle Bisleri Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE-2011 (263) ELT 15 (S.C.) (ii) CCE Vs. Limca Flavours & Fragrances Ltd.-2006 (198) ELT 106 (Tri.-Mumbai) (iii) L.D. Industries Vs. CCE-2003 (157) ELT 459 (Tri.-Del.) (iv) Supreme Washers (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE-2003 (161) ELT 14 (S.C.) (v) CCE Vs. Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd.-2004 (171) ELT 155 (S.C.) 3.2 The learned Advocate further submitted that the SSI limits for the relevant period have been wrongly arrived at by including the value of the chassis in respect of LPG tanks manufactured by the appellant ina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the said notification. For ensuring uniformity of levy of duties of excise in terms of the notification dated 01.03.1986, the Central Board of Excise and Customs has prescribed the general principles, which were communicated vide Circular No. 6/92 dated 25.09.1992. With regard to clubbing of clearances of various firms, the principle laid down by the Board is as under: "Different firms will be treated as different manufacturers for the purpose of 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 the shareholders composing it. Hence each limited company is a manufacturer by itself and will be entitled to a separate exemption limit." 6.1 In the case in hand, it is an admitted fact on record that the appellant is a private limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the other two firms namely, M/s IEC and RSF are proprietorship concerns, belonging to Shri Sandeep Ghosh and Shri Sudeep Ghosh respectively. Since, the appellant is a private limited company; its clearances canno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....department. The investigation subsequently culminated in a separate show cause notice dated 16.12.1993 issued to M/s IEC, treating it as a manufacturer. Since, the department has considered M/s IEC as a manufacturer of excisable goods and accordingly, proceeded for confirmation of the duty demand, such stand cannot be altered subsequently, to hold that the said unit was physically not in existence and therefore, the clearances made by it should be clubbed with the value of clearances of the appellant. 6.4 The value of clearances for the purpose of availing SSI benefit, for the relevant period, has been wrongly arrived at by the department in including the value of the chassis for the LPG tanks manufactured by the appellant. As per Notification No. 241/86-C.E. dated 03.04.1986 read with circular dated 04.09.1986 issued by CBEC, the value of chassis is required to be excluded for the value of the final product. We find that while computing the proposed demand for the earlier show cause notice dated 16.12.1993, the value of chassis was excluded by the department, which is evident from the annexure to such show cause notice. Thus, in this case since, there is no change in the method ....