BENTEX INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common order -in -original dated 28 -9 -1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he had confirmed the duty and penalty amounts against them.

(2.) M /s. Bentex Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'BI')/ appellants No. 1, are manufacturer of electrical motor starter, control panel and parts thereof, while appellants No. 2, M/s. Bentex Electricals (hereinafter referred to as 'BE') are engaged in the manufacture of MCB, metal sheet enclosure, KWH energy meters, distribution board etc. The company, appellants no. 1, was formerly known as M/s. National Electric Industries. This company was set up in the year 1984 and is a private limited company in which Shri R.L. Chopra, is M.D., while his wife Smt. Veena Chopra and daughter Smt. Rashi Khanna, are the Directors. Whereas the appellant No. 2, BE, is a Proprietorship concern of Shri R.L. Chopra, who started the same in the year 1987. Both the appellants were availing benefit of small -scale exemption notification. However, w.e.f. 1 -4 -1995 the appellants No. 2 started paying full rate of duty as his clearances in the preceding financial year exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs. 2 crores. The brand name used by the company, appellants No. 1, is 'BENTEX RC, while by the appellants No. 2 is only 'RC - a Bentex product. The premises of both these appellants were visited by the officers of the Central Excise on 4 -6 -1997. The statements of the Directors of the company, appellant No. 1 and Proprietor of appellants No. 2 were recorded. The statements of various employees were also recorded on different dates. On completion of investigation, show cause notice dated 4 -6 -1998 was issued to both these appellants proposing clubbing of their clearances for the period 1 -5 -1993 to 30 -6 -1997. The proposed duty was also demanded from them jointly. Penal action was also proposed against them under Section 11 AC of the Act, Rules 173Q and 9(2) of the Rules. Both companies, however, contested the correctness of that show cause notice and claimed themselves to be independent units. The appellants No. 2 also averred that after 1 -4 -1995, full duty was being paid on the clearances for having exceeded Rs. 2 crores' limit. The Commissioner, however, did not accept their version and passed the impugned order vide which he confirmed the duty of Rs 48,01,585/ - against both of them with equal amount of penalty through the impugned order.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned DR, has simply reiterated the correctness of the impugned order of the Commissioner.