Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Poona Radiators And Oil Coolers on 30 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I APPEAL NO. E/3411/05-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 29/ASR/2004-ADJ dated 22.09.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III.) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) =====================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
===================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III Appellant Vs. M/s Poona Radiators and Oil Coolers Respondent Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar, Jt. Commissioner (A.R.) for Appellant None for Respondent CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE SHRI C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 30.08.2016 Date of Decision: 30.08.2016 ORDER NO. Per: M.V. Ravindran:
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Original No. 29/ASR/2004-ADJ dated 22.09.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III.
2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. Since the appeal is of 2005, we take up the appeal for disposal even in the absence of any representation from the respondent.
3. Heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the records.
4. The issue that falls for consideration the case in hand is whether the following eight units are inter-related and whether the clearance needs to be clubbed for arriving at benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 01.03.1986.
The Constitution of the eight units under reference is as follows:-
Sl. No. Name of the unit Name of the Proprietor/ Partners S/Shri Value of plant and machinery installed (1986-87)
1.
Poona Radiators and Oil Coolers (PRO) Osman Haji Ali Talab Rs. 20 lakhs
2. Young Industries (YI) Mrs. Zehra Osman Talab Salim Osman Talab Rs. 20 lakhs
3. Talab Engineering Company (TEC) Talab Trust Rs. 3.5 lakhs
4. Royal Radiators Osman Haji Ali Talab Iqbal Osman Talab Mrs. Razia Ahmed Ms. Shehnaz Osman Talab Rs. 8.45 lakhs
5. Kondwa Engineering Works (KEW) Osman Haji Ali Talab Iqbal Osman Talab Ms. Shehnaz Osman Talab Rs. 8 lakhs
6. Kondwa Agro Industries (KAI) Iqbal Osman Talab Rs. 3.5 lakhs
7. Poona Heat Exchangers (PHE) Osman Haji Ali Talab Mrs. Zehra Osman Talab Iqbal Osman Talab Salim Osman Talab Rs. 2.45 lakhs
8. Talab Fabricators (TF) Mrs. Zehra Osman Talab Mrs. Razia Ahmed Mrs. Shenaz Ashraf Rs. 44,000.00 It is the case of the Revenue that eight units indicated hereinabove are of the same family group; hence in effect all the units need to be clubbed together. The adjudicating authority has specifically recorded that the eight units are separately registered as small scale unit, whether as partnership concerns and each unit is registered under the Central Excise Act as well as with the various Government Department like Sales Tax Act, Income Tax Act, Factories Act, etc. As per the adjudicating authority each unit has acquired their own manufacturing raw materials and finished goods were sold directly to their respective customers. He has recorded that all the goods are as per order placed by the customers of each unit. The adjudicating authority has recorded a clear findings that the units are independent and hence clubbing of clearance of the units physically manufacturing cannot be accepted. These factual positions not controverted by department. We also find that there is nothing on record to show that manufacturing activity was distributed amongst of the manufacturing units to create a facade for evasion of duty. There is also nothing on record that this unit were created for benefit of individuals. There is no effective counter to such a finding of the adjudicating authority.
5. In our considered view, there is no common control or financial flow back, or movement of finished goods between units, each unit is having independent manufacturing unit registered with the Excise Authority, accordingly the findings of adjudicating authority is correct and as per settled position of law. We hold that the impugned order is correct and legal and does not require any interference. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in open Court) (C.J. Mathew) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) Sp 2 APPEAL NO. E/3411/05-Mum