Excise Appeals Nos. 3959 of 2012, 55209, 55208, 55207, 55206, 55205, 55204, 55401, 55400 of 2013 (Arising out of the Order-in-Original Nos. 96-105/COMMR/IND/CEX/2012-13 dated 30/08/2012 passed by The Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Indore) and Final Order Nos. 50366-50374/2017. Case: CCE & ST, Indore Vs Mars Stationary (P) Ltd. and Ors.. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Excise Appeals Nos. 3959 of 2012, 55209, 55208, 55207, 55206, 55205, 55204, 55401, 55400 of 2013 (Arising out of the Order-in-Original Nos. 96-105/COMMR/IND/CEX/2012-13 dated 30/08/2012 passed by The Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Indore) and Final Order Nos. 50366-50374/2017 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Amresh Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) and For Respondents: Balbir Singh, Senior Advocate and Alok Barthwal, Advocate |
| Judges | S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) and B. Ravichandran, Member (T) |
| Issue | Excise |
| Judgement Date | January 18, 2017 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
B. Ravichandran, Member (T), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
-
These 9 appeals by Revenue are against common impugned order dated 30/08/2012 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. Briefly stated, the common issue involved in these appeals is that the Central Excise duty liability has not been discharged by M/s. Kores (India) Ltd. and other respondents by wrongly availing small scale industry exemption based on turnover. The case of the Revenue is that these units (other than M/s. Kores), were only dummy units and accordingly the clearance of these units are to be considered together to reckon turnover and to decide the tax liability.
-
The dispute has a long history. Certain investigations were conducted in October 1996 against M/s. Kores (India) Ltd. On completion of investigation show cause notices proposing clubbing of clearances of 4 different SSI units, alleged to be dummy units of M/s. Kores, were issued. The said demand notices were confirmed by order dated 30/03/1998. On appeal, the order was confirmed by the Tribunal except waiver/modification of penalty. The case was taken up before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in 8 writ-petitions. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 17/11/2005 remanded the case to the Original Authority along with certain guidelines, to decide the case afresh. In the meantime, three more appeal pending in Tribunal on the same issue, for the subsequent periods, were also remanded to the Jurisdictional Commissioner by the Tribunal to decide all cases together. However, before the receipt of these remand cases from the Tribunal, the case remanded by the Hon'ble High Court was decided by the Commissioner vide order dated 30/03/2010. In the said order, the Original Authority confirmed the demand again. On appeal, the Tribunal vide final order 52954-52961/2015 - EX (DB) dated 10/09/2015 set aside the original order and allowed the appeal of the parties. In the meantime, the three appeal cases remanded by the Tribunal vide final order dated 28/04/2010 were decided by the impugned order dated 30/08/2012. By this impugned order, the Commissioner dropped all the proceedings against the respondents holding that the case of the Revenue, that the small scale units were dummy and the turnover of all these units require to be clubbed to arrive at the turnover and to fix Central Excise duty liability, is not legally sustainable.
-
The Revenue preferred these appeals against the impugned order dated 30/08/2012. The grounds of appeal can be summarized as below:-
(i) The Commissioner had erred in holding that all the 4 units have separate registration under different statutory laws like Sales Tax, Companies Act, Income Tax Act and as such all units are to be treated independent of each other. The creation of legal entity through registration with various statutory authorities is only a camouflage to avoid Central Excise duty based on small scale industry exemption. When the units are sharing...
To continue reading
Request your trial