TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess of each other, their turnover cannot be clubbed for determining their eligibility to small scale exemption. In other words, the criteria adopted in Section 4 of the Act for determining interconnected undertaking cannot be applied for determination of the fact as who is the manufacturer. - applicants herein have made out a strong prima facie case in their favour on merits. - stay granted. - E/904-909/2010 - Stay Order Nos. S/499-504/2011-WZB/C-II/EB - Dated:- 20-6-2011 - Shri Ashok Jindal and P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Shri Vinay Sejpal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Kishori Lal, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER There are five stay applications and five appeals, which are under consideration in this order. As the issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were issued to the above four firms demanding differential duty under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as detailed below : (i) Show cause notice dated 8-9-2009 demanding a duty of Rs. 52,68,971/- for the clearances of excisable goods effected during the period from 2004-2005 to 2008-2009 issued to Spick-N-Span Steel Wools (P) Ltd., (ii) Show cause notice dated 20-8-2009 demanding a duty of Rs. 4,83,791/- for the clearances of excisable goods effected during the period from August 2004 to March 2005 issued to Handy Wires Pvt. Ltd.; (iii) Show cause notice dated 23-9-2009 demanding a duty of Rs. 32,01,401/- for the clearances of excisable goods effected during the period from 2004-2005 to 2008-2009 issued to Handy P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the four show-cause notices were adjudicated vide a common order dated 1-4-2010, dated 8-1-2010 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur and the Commissioner confirmed the duty demands as mentioned above, as well as interest thereon. The Commissioner further imposed equivalent amount of penalty on all the four companies under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and also imposed penalties of Rs. 25,000/- on Spick-N-Span Steel Wools (P) Ltd., Rs. 15,000/- each on Stewools India Ltd., Handy Wires Pvt. Ltd., and Handy Products (India) under the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri J.K. Doongaji, Director of Spick-N-Span Steel Wools (P) Ltd., under Section 11AC read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factories or from one factory by one or more manufacturers. The said notification does not visualise clubbing of aggregate value of clearances of four separate manufacturers having four separate factories. The Ld. Counsel also submits that four separate show-cause notices were issued in this case to each of the manufacturers recognising them as independent and separate entities. Therefore, the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003 cannot be ignored or denied for independent manufacturers. 3.1 The applicants have relied on a number of judicial pronouncements in support of their above contentions, namely : (a) Kiran Biscuits Foods Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad - 2005 (179) E.L.T. 566 (Tri. - Bang.) (b) Sapthagiri Cements Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and justifies the clubbing of clearances of all four units for the purpose of computing exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. as amended. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 6. This Tribunal in a number of decisions, namely, Kiran Biscuits Foods Ltd., Poly Printers, Universal Industries cited supra, had, time and again, held that private companies and partnership firms are independent entities and merely because they have mutual interest in the business of each other, their turnover cannot be clubbed for determining their eligibility to small scale exemption. In other words, the criteria adopted in Section 4 of the Act for determining interconnected undertaking cannot be applied for determination of the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion of distributing the exemption may not arise. If one firm or individual owns several factories, he or it gets exemption only in respect of one individual owns several factories, he or it gets exemption only in respect of one lot and the manufacturer being only one entity there will be no question of distributing the exemption. (iv) Whether or not in the expression by or on behalf of a manufacturer he expression from one or more factories is added, the effect would be the same if the manufacturer is also the same. The expression one or more factories only further clarifies that whether the factory is one or more, it is the clearances by or on behalf of the same manufacturer which is to be taken into consideration for purposes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
