Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 79 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - Clubbing of turnover of other two units for the Central Excise taxation purpose - allegation that controlling person of all three units is only one person - dubious nature of financial statements - Held that:- Prime requirement of clubbing of clearance of two units is not having complete independent machinery and infrastructure to manufacture the goods. If both the units are complete by itself, capable of manufacturing the goods without any help from the other unit, and are independently, registered with the sales tax, industries registration, Income-Tax Registration and having separate Electricity Connection, telephone connection etc., it has to be held that they are independent units. In the present case, it is not even the Revenue’s case that all three units are working from the same premises or have any common facility. Infact we really find it strange that clearances of the unit which came into existence in 1981 are being clubbed with the clearance of two units which is admittedly came into existence in 1973 onwards. We really fail to understand and if we accept the Revenue's case, there would be no explanation as to what the unit which was working from 1973 onwards, was actually doing. M/s. Tirupati Alloy and Steel Pvt. Ltd. was independent private limited company engaged in the manufacture of final product from 1973 onwards and its clearance cannot be clubbed with subsequently incorporated limited company after of a period of 8 to 9 years. We are also informed that Mrs Neha Beri Mhase was a child when the said unit were formed and became Director of the same subsequently on the death of her father. In such a scenario, the finding of the adjudicating authority that Mrs. Neha Beri Mhase was controlling the affairs of the manufacturing units, in which case their clearance has to be clubbed cannot be appreciated and upheld. We find no merits in the Revenue’s stand - Following decision of CCE, Kanpur vs. Sharad Industries [2013 (9) TMI 213 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - Decided in favour of assessee.
|