Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: parle products in Shri Dasharath Pranjivan Chauhan vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 4 April, 2025Matching Fragments
Appearance:
Ms. Padmavati Patil, Advocate for the Appellant Shri C.S. Vinod, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. A/85710-85711/2025 Date of Hearing: 04.04.2025 Date of Decision: 04.04.2025 Per: S.K. MOHANTY Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pigment Dispersions and Pigment Chips, classifiable under Chapter 32 of the First Schedule to the 2 E/85256 & 85259/2016 Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants undertake such manufacturing activities in their factory situated at Village Valiv, Vasai Vajreshwary Road, Vasai (E), Dist-Thane. The appellant being a Small Scale Industrial Unit (SSI Unit), during the disputed period had availed the benefit of Notification No. 9/2000-C.E., dated 01.03.2000 in respect of the clearances of the final products made by them. However, the department had denied the benefit of the exemption notification, on the ground that M/s. Parle Products Pvt.
Ltd., is the holding company of the appellants since, they hold almost 80% of the share capital in the appellants company. Thus, it was contended by Revenue that if the value of clearances/turnover of Parle Products is added to the clearance value of the final product manufactured by the appellants, then such value would be much more, than the prescribed threshold limit provided under the said notification. Therefore, the department had interpreted that the appellants should not be entitled for the concessional rate of duty provided under the said Notification dated 01.03.2000. The matter arising out of the show cause notice dated 04.01.2006 issued in this regard, was adjudicated vide order dated 31.07.2006, wherein the learned Adjudicating Authority had confirmed Central Excise Duty along with interest and also imposed penalties on the appellants. On appeal against the said adjudication order dated 31.07.2006, the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I vide the impugned order dated 14.10.2015 has upheld confirmation of the adjudged demands and rejected the appeal filed by the appellants. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 14.10.2015, the appellants have preferred these appeals before the Tribunal.
3. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative appearing for Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submitted that since Parle Products Pvt. Ltd., is a holding company of the appellants and holds almost 80% of the share capital, their value of clearance should also be considered for the purpose of calculation of the assessable value under the Notification dated 01.03.2000. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parle Bisleri Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commr. Of Cus. & C.Ex., Ahmedabad - 2011 (263) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.) and the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Premium Suiting (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2016 (331) E.L.T. 589 (All.), to state that denial of the benefit of Notification dated 01.03.2000 and confirmation of the adjudged demands on the appellants by the department is in conformity with the statutory provisions.
4. Heard both sides and examined the case records.
5. It is an admitted fact on record that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and also claimed the benefit of Notification dated 01.03.2000 in respect of the Central Excise duty payable on the excisable goods removed from their factory. However, the Revenue has denied the benefit of such notification solely on the ground that the appellants are 'interconnected undertaking' of M/s Parle Products Pvt. Ltd., and as such, the clearance value of such 4 E/85256 & 85259/2016 holding company should be clubbed with the clearance value of the appellants for the purpose of denying the benefit of Notification dated 01.03.2000, as a SSI Unit. On reading of the said Notification dated 01.03.2000, we find that the concept of 'interconnected undertaking', 'holding and subsidiary' etc., had not been dealt with by the Central Government therein. It is not the case of Revenue that the appellants had not maintained separate accounting records, reflecting their financial particulars. Since, the appellants are recognized as an independent manufacturer of excisable goods, which are distinctively different from the final products of M/s. Parle Products and upon satisfaction, the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities have issued the Central Excise Registration certificate in their behalf, in our considered view, the clearance value of holding company M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd., cannot be clubbed with the clearance value of the appellants for the purpose of denying the benefit of SSI exemption provided under the Notification dated 01.03.2000. We find that the issue arising out of the present issue is no more res integra, in view of the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Aschem Agrotech (P) Ltd.(supra). The relevant paragraphs recorded in the said order are extracted herein below: