Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Libra Engineering Works vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 27 June, 2016
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad ~~~~~ Appeal No : E/1476/2008 (Arising out of OIA-158/2008-AHD-I-CE/ID/COMMR-A- dated 19/08/2008 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise-AHMEDABAD-I0) M/s Libra Engineering Works : Appellant (s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise-AHMEDABAD-I : Respondent (s)
Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : None For Respondent (s): Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative For approval and signature:
Dr. D. M. Misra, Honble Member (Judicial) Mr. P. M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes CORAM:
Dr. D. M. Misra, Honble Member (Judicial) Mr. P. M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/Decision: 27.06.2016 Order No. A/10576 / 2016 Dated 27.06.2016 Per: Dr. D. M. Misra This is an appeal filed against OIA No. 158/2008(Ahd-1)CE/ID/Commr(A) dated 19.08.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise,(Appeals) Ahmedabad.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case that the appellants unit and the Unit of M/s Accurate Engineers, were visited by the Central Excise Officers on 22.12.2006. It was found that both these units were engaged in the manufacture of Industrial valves falling under Chapter 84 of CETA,1985 and clearing goods without payment of duty by availing value based SSI exemption notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. On completion of necessary investigation, it has been alleged that both units were managed and controlled by the Proprietor of the appellant Mr. Asgarali A. Siddiqui, therefore, these units are one and the same , hence in computing the total clearance value of excisable goods of the Appellants Unit, the clearance value of M/s Accurate Engineers, be clubbed for the purpose of determining the eligibility of SSI exemption notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. It was further alleged that during the financial year 2005-06, the appellant had exceeded the exemption limit by Rs.13,20,981/- involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,15,584/-. Consequently, a demand notice was issued on 29.10.2007 for recovery of duty and imposition of penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal.
3. The appellant has filed a written submission dated 30.05.2016 with a request to decide the case on merit. In their written submission, mainly they have assailed the order of the authorities below arguing that the clubbing of the clearance values of M/s Accurate Engineers with that of M/s Libra Engineering Works, is incorrect as both these units are having separate legal existence, in as much as they posses separate PAN No., Sales Tax Registration, file separate Income Tax & Sales Tax Returns, accordingly each unit is eligible to the exemption limit of 100 Lacs prescribed under Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. They referred to various case laws on the subject in support of their argument.
4. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that on the day of visit of the Units, the officers recorded the statement of Shri Asgarali a. Siddiqui, proprietor of the appellant. In his statement, he has categorically accepted that the other unit, namely, M/s Accurate Engineers, was also a proprietorship unit, whose proprietress was his wife Smt. Halimakatun Asgarali Siddiqui and its existence is for names sake; all the management/control and day to day affairs of M/s Accurate Engineers, had been handle by him. Ld. AR further brought to our notice, the statement of Smt. Halimakatun A. Siddiqui recorded much later i.e. on 25.05.2007, where under she has also accepted that all activities carried out in their factory were looked after by her husband Shri Asgarali A. Siddiqui, and she was not aware of anything about the working of the said unit; she had only signed the documents as and when placed before her. It is the contention of the Ld. AR that these statements had never been retracted nor contradicted, therefore, the plea that both the units are separate for the purpose of availing Notification No.08/2003 CE dt.01.03.2003 has been rightly rejected by the authorities below. It is his submission that the case laws referred to by the appellant are on different set of facts & circumstances and hence not applicable.
5. We have considered the written submission of the appellant and also the submission of the Ld. AR for the Revenue. The short issue involved in the present case for determination is: whether the clearance value of M/s Accurate Engineers be clubbed with that of M/s. Libra Engineering Works for the purpose of extending the benefit of SSI exemption notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 or other wise.
6. On analysing the evidences on record, we find that the Central Excise officers visited the unit of the appellant, that is, M/s Libra Engineering Works and after taking stock of the machineries installed in the said unit, visited the premises of M/s Accurate Engineers also to ascertain the machineries installed therein. After drawing necessary panchnama at both these units, the statement of Proprietor of the appellant, that is, Shri Asgarali A. Siddiqui, was recorded who has admitted that both units were engaged in the manufacture of Industrial valves falling under Chapter 84 of CETA, 1985 and availing SSI exemption notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 separately. Also, he has further stated that the other unit in which his wife was the proprietress had been handled/controlled by him. The officers during the course of investigation also recorded the statements of buyers who equivocally stated that for the purpose of purchase of finished goods, invariably they contact Shri Asgarali A. Siddiqui, and the goods were sent in the invoices of M/s Accurate Engineers. The proprietress Smt. Halimakatun A. Siddiqui, in her statement admitted that she was a house wife and not involved in the management of the business of manufacturing/selling of industrial valves. Analysing these uncontradicted evidences, we do not harbour any doubt that even though M/s Accurate Engineers, on record, a separate unit, but, its day to day function and management was handled by Shri Asgarali A. Siddiqui, proprietor of M/s Libra Engineering Works and his wife Smt. Halimakatun A. Siddiqui has lent her name as proprietress of the firm. In other words, 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. In these circumstances, we do not find any error in the order of the authorities below in clubbing the clearance value of both the units for the financial year 2005-06 in computing the eligible limit of 100 Lacs for the Appellant Unit prescribed under notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 and confirmed the duty short paid and penalty imposed.
7. In the result, the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court) (P. M. Saleem) (D. M. Misra) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) G.Y. ??
??
??
??
5