TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with effect from 1-4-79, in terms of notification No. 141/79 dated 30-3-79, the exemption limit from duty on the specified goods was, inter alia, subject to the condition that the clearance of all excisable goods by or on behalf of a manufacturer, did not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs in the preceding financial year. The appellants according to the department did not submit any new classification list after issue of Notification No. 141/79. However, the department vide its letter dated 2-11-79 asked for information relating to the value of all excisable goods cleared by other units of MPSIC. Since no information was received the Supdt. of Central Excise issued four show cause notices demanding the duty. The details of the said four show cause notices and the demand are as follows :- Show Cause Notice No. Dt. Period Amount C.No. CEX (20) 71/79/443 dt. 26-3-80 1. 4/79 to 6/79 8,042.06 C.No. CEX (20) 71/79/441 dt. 26-3-80 2. 7/79 to 2/80 31,519.60 C.No. CEX (20) 71/79/556 dt. 25-4-80 3. 3/80 2,072.68 C.No. CEX (20) 71/79/700 dt. 31-5-80 4. 4/80 17.69 The said show cause notices we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emption to small scale units (Nil Duty on first clearances of Rs. 5 lakhs) vide notification No. 71/78 dated 1-3-1978, consequently the appellant factory also got its benefit for which classification list was duly got approved and continued to avail during 1979-80 until 27-3-1980 when the appellant factory received show cause notices under reference. On this premises he submitted that the appellant factory was the manufacturer of Chinaware and Porcelainware and the MPSIC should not be treated as manufacturer and if so treated the clearances effected by the appellant factory would come within the exemption limit of Rs. 20 lakhs as envisaged in Notification No. 141/79 dated 30-3-79 and therefore, according to the learned counsel the authorities below erred in treating the MPSIC as the manufacturer. In support of his contention he cited the case of Government Ceramic Service Centre v. Collector of Central Excise, 1983 E.L.T. 1215 and the case of Bajrang Gopilal Gajvi v. M.N. Balkundri [1986 (25) E.L.T. 609 (S.C.)] decided on 8-7-1971 by the Hon ble Bombay High Court. In reply Mrs. V. Zutshi, the learned SDR supported the impugned order and submitted that the case law cited by the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5. From the impugned orders we find that the aforesaid contentions were also raised before the authorities below. However, the Assistant Collector, Gwalior who adjudicated the case negatived the said contentions of the appellants in these words :- ..it has been admitted by the party that the unit works under the financial control of MPSIC and all the workers employed in the unit are in the employment of the corporation. Their argument that the corporation has only financial control over the unit and they are themselves a manufacturer is entirely misconceived and is not tenable both on facts and in law. There is hardly any dispute about the fact that all the persons presently engaged in the manufacture of Chinaware and Porcelainware falling under tariff item 23-B in Gwalior potteries Gwalior are mere employees and their interest in the unit is strictly limited to the extent of an employee only. For all purposes corporation is controller of the unit financial and otherwise and is the owner. Even if corporation is an absentee owner, even then it is empowered in law to carry on the business through its paid material Manager and other factory off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 141/79 dated 30-3-79 (as extracted above) it is clear that the exemption contained in the notification was not applicable to a manufacturer during the financial year 1978-79, if the aggregate value of the specified goods (herein Chinaware and Porcelainware) cleared, if any, by him or on his behalf for home-consumption, from one or more factories, during the relevant period commencing on the 1st day of April, 1977 and ending on the 28th day of February, 1978, had exceeded Rs. 13.75 lakhs; and during financial years subsequent to the financial year 1978-79, if such clearances, if any, of the specified goods, during the preceding financial year, had exceeded rupees fifteen lakhs and in the case of manufacturer who manufactures excisable goods falling under more-than one Item Number of the said First Schedule and the aggregate value of all excisable goods cleared by him or on his behalf for home consumption, from one or more factories, during the preceding financial year, had exceeded rupees twenty lakhs. It is not in dispute that if the aggregate value of a specified goods/excisable goods cleared by MPSIC from its one or more factories are taken together the appellants were not ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification. It would be needless to state that the liability to pay the excise duty is of the manufacturer which in this case is the MPSIC itself. Its various units were not legal entities. The MPSIC may have obtained separate licences for its various factories. But that is not to say that it was not to be treated as an assessee for payment of excise duty. The liability was its. Appellant s reliance on the case of Government Ceramic Service Centre, Cannanore v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, supra is not helpful because the clubbing of clearances of excisable goods in the instant case was made because these were cleared by or on behalf of the same manufacturer i.e. to say MPSIC whereas in the said case of Government Ceramic Service Centre, Cannaiwre clubbing of clearances was proposed to be made of two different and distinct companies i.e. to say G.S.C. owned by Kerala State Industries Corporation Limited and the Kerala Ceramics Limited, Kindara, another company incorporated under the Companies Act. The case of Bajrang Gopilal Gajvi v. M.N. Balkundri, supra cited by the learned counsel for the appellants is also distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the case. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
