GEORGE KURIAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are five appeals filed by the appellants, George Kurian & others with reference to the common impugned order. The issue involved herein is common in all these appeals, hence they are taken together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) SHRI Lakshminarayanan, ld. Adv. appearing for the appellants submitted that the issue relates to clubbing of clearances. He said that both units are independent units and they are separate legal entities in the eyes of law. They are having separate income tax and sales tax registration. Further, he said that the matter is coming before the Tribunal for the second time. The Tribunal in the earlier order has observed that the appellants had taken a plea before the learned lower authority that the two units had been started at different times and the authorities were all along aware about the production of the tread rubber in both the units separately and the permission under Rule 57F(2) had been given by the authorities to M/s. Treadwell Rubbers for getting the raw materials processed at M/s. Excel Tyre and Rubber Products on the job work basis. On examining the matter the Tribunal had come to a conclusion that since the pleas raised by party were not properly considered by the authorities below, and accordingly the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the pleas raised by the party. He submitted that the authorities below have not followed the direction of the Tribunal in passing the revised order. Furthermore the adjudicating authority has enhanced the quantum of penalty on the said appellants in addition to that, plant and machinery were ordered for confiscation. In the original order, plant and machinery were not ordered for confiscation, but on remand, the adjudicating authority ordered for confiscation of plant and machinery, which is not correct. He said that in view of the various flaws committed by the authorities in the impugned order, the order is liable to be set aside and appeals are to be allowed accordingly.

(3.) SHRI Thomas, appearing for Revenue submitted that pleas raised by the party with reference to the clubbing of clearances has been considered and examined by the adjudicating authority. He fairly conceded that order for confiscation of plant and machinery was not in the original order though they are mentioned in the show cause notice, since it was dropped in the adjudication proceedings. He also conceded that the quantum of penalty has been enhanced in the subsequent order on remand.