Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (4) TMI 321

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s cleared from the factory premises of M/s. Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Vimal Electroplast and M/s. Vishal Enterprises during the period from 9-5-1981 to 4-11-1985 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, including the battery chargers for which invoices have been issued during this period in the name of M/s. Vishal Enterprises and M/s. Heat and Chemical Process Equipments. The Commissioner in the impugned order also ordered confiscation of 20 battery chargers valued at Rs. 18,14,520/- under Rule 173Q read with Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules and gave option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... owertronics Pvt. Ltd. During investigation it was also found that one more unit M/s. Heat and Chemicals Process Equipment is situated at Bombay which was also under the control of the same management. The investigation shows that the units under five different names are operated in the common interest and they did not take out Central Excise licence nor did they follow Central Excise procedure and suppressed the facts and filed wrong declaration to avail the concession from the licence control and payment of Central Excise duty. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that since the inception of their manufacturing activity, the appellant units had never engaged more than 9 workers for the purpose of manufacturing its .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce in the eyes of law. They are separately treated and recognised by various statutory authorities of Central and State Government. They are separately assessed to Income Tax and Sales Tax. All the appellants have separate ESI registration. The units are also separately controlled by statutory authorities in respect of labour, minimum wages etc. He therefore prays that the clubbing of the production of the units is not sustainable. 5. Heard Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR. 6. The contention of the appellant is that they are separate units and they at no point of time have engaged more than 9 workers. Therefore they are not covered under the definition of the factory under Section 2(m) of Factory Act. 7. The Notification No. 46/81, dated 1-3-19 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ttendance register is being maintained by different units. Shri L.N. Patil, Administrative Officer of M/s. Vimal Electroplast Pvt. Ltd. Chabbi Electricals Pvt. Ltd and Vishal Enterprises in his statement submitted that muster roll (attendance register) are maintained jointly for all the three units and he also submitted that common workers of the units were between 38 to 48. 10. In view of the above discussion we do not find any infirmity in the finding arrived at by the Collector of Central Excise that appellants are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 46/81-C.E. 11. It has also on record that all the factories are governed by Shri and Smt. Rane and Shri A.G. Gupta was a common Works Manager for all the units. The Administ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at all the units of the appellants situated at Jalagaon are maintaining common record for raw material and also for manufacture they have common Works Manager and Administrative Officer and they have also common workers, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order in respect of clubbing all the clearances of these units. This view finds support in the Tribunal s decision in the case of Unique Raison Co. v. CCE reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 230. In this case the Tribunal held that where the units have common infrastructural facilities and run by the same family and the products of the units have common code No., the units are not independent and the value of the clearances of these units are to be clubbed. In view of the above discussi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates