B.A. RAJAMANICKAM AND ORS. Vs. CCE, COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are five appeals arising out of a common Order -in -Original No. 28/90 dated 8.1.1991 under which the Collector has clubbed the clearances of five units for the purpose of assessing the duty. All the appellants have requested under their letters dated 21.10.1999, to decide the matter on merits. We, therefore, heard Sri S. Kannan, learned D.R. and perused the records. The Collector has given his findings in paras 16 to 27 of the impugned order, which are extracted hereinbelow: - -

(2.) COUNTERING the arguments Sri S. Kannan, Learned D.R., reiterated the findings extracted above and submitted that all the evidences clearly revealed that there was financial accommodation, there was free use of machinery for manufacturing operation and electricity bills were settled in an ad -hoc manner and there was no separate electricity meters and all the units were not having even sufficient machinery to manufacture the impugned goods i.e. electrical stampings. He relied upon the decision in the case of Wardrobes v. CCE as reported in, 1992 (42) ECR 86 (T), wherein it was held that when two units are manufacturing goods from the same factory, they are not separately entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 71/78. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Priya Corporation v. CCE as reported in : 1990 (48) ELT 26 :, 1990 (28) ECR 321 (T), wherein it was held that when the entire affairs and the management is controlled by one person and the manufacturing activity is taking place at only one unit and the other units not having sufficient machinery or labour to carry on the manufacturing activity independently, the small scale benefit will not be applicable. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. A perusal of the impugned order clearly brings out that all the five units were not independent and they were created for the purpose of availing the benefit of the small scale exemption Notification. It has been clearly mentioned in the impugned order that there was no permanent set of workers and only temporary persons were working in each unit. The appellants have not at all rebutted the findings of the Commissioner to the effect that the date of purchase of stamp paper for executing the lease deed was altered by Sri Kumaravel in order to show that the lease deed was executed much before the search was conducted by the Central Excise Officers. There is no rebuttal also of the findings by adducing evidence that all the units were having adequate machinery, electricity meters and that they were using the facilities available only with M/s. Golden Stampings Co. without indication of any charges being paid, which clearly shows that there was financial accommodation among them and there was flow back of funds. We also find that the Collector has given findings to the effect that proprietor of the dummy units were not aware about the investments as well as the manufacturing activity carried out in those units. In view of the decision relied upon by the learned D.R. and taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are in agreement with the findings of the Collector that the units were created for the purpose of availing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. We, therefore, reject all the appeals filed by the appellants.