Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 324 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - clubbing of clearances - dummy unit - non-inclusion of clearances of other unit namely, M/s Kumar Polyextrusion, which is owned by the wife of the proprietor - case of appellant is that merely because two units are owned by husband and wife, clearance of one unit cannot be clubbed with another in considering the SSI exemption notification. HELD THAT:- The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in appreciating the evidence as a whole and in particular the control and management of the unit M/s Kumar Polyextrusion by Proprietor of M/s Mali Pipe Industries even though on paper both the units were shown and claimed to have separate existence and functions separately carrying out its business of manufacture and sale of goods independent to each other. On the contrary, the entire operation and business of both the units undoubtedly controlled and managed by one person that is Shri Kumar Shankar Mali, hence, the clearance of both units be clubbed. The facts of the present case are more or less similar to the facts of the case in M/S LIBRA ENGINEERING WORKS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-AHMEDABAD-I [2016 (7) TMI 1116 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], hence by the judgment of this Tribunal delivered in the said case where it was held that for all practical purposes, the management/control of the business of manufacture and sale has been handled by Mr. Asgarali A. Siddiqui, proprietor of the Appellant and clearances were clubbed. Maintainability of appeal - the respondents raised another issue that the Revenue has not filed four appeals but instead filed only one appeal, therefore, the same is not maintainable - HELD THAT:- The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issues partly in favour of the respondents, modifying the Order of the adjudicating authority, therefore, the Revenue has filed only one appeal challenging the Order-in-Appeal only to the extent it was not accepted by the Revenue, that is on the issue of clubbing of clearance. Consequently the Appeal is sustainable. Demand upheld - decided in favor of Revenue.
|