META PACK Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three appeals arising out of a Common Adjudication Order dated 11 -3 -91 passed by Collector, Central Excise and as such are being disposed of by one Common Order.

(2.) Briefly stated facts are that both the Appellants M/s. Meta Craft and Meta Pack manufacture metal containers and consists of following partners : -

(3.) Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, submitted that both Meta Craft and Meta Pack have separate SSI Registration, Income -tax Number, Sales Tax Registration, Excise Licence, Import/Export Licence, Power connection, telephone connection, separate premises, staff and separate registration with registrar of firms; that unfinished side seam welded tins were sent by Meta Craft to Meta Pack for printing, lacquering rubber solutioning, etc., after obtaining prior permission under Rule 57F(2); that later on Mera Pack also started manufacturing side seam welded tins from 1988 and unfinished goods were removed under Rule 57F(2) to Meta Craft for wielding and other unfinished goods were sent for setting of sheets, seaming of tins etc. The learned Advocate, further submitted that the payments made to each other unit was for the job work done which was in the knowledge of the Department as permission under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules was grafted and as such the entire transactions were purely commercial transactions; that there is no allegation that money remained permanently with them and as such there was no financial flow back. He emphasised that as partners are not common in both the units, the question of lifting the veil does not arise; that further existence of mutuality of interest, which was found by Collector, evidences existence of two units and accordingly the clearances of both the units cannot be clubbed together. The learned Advocate relied upon the decision in the case of Jagjivan Das and Co. v. C.C.E., Bombay -II - 1985 (19) E.L.T. 441 (T) wherein it was held that the factors like use of common telephone by the three firms consisting of relations, use of table space by one firm in the shop -cum office of another, use of common telegraphic address, location of three factories in the same compound, Commonness of partners, occassional use of buffing machines of one firm by others and mutual financial transactions without charging of interest, etc., are not conclusive circumstances to show that the clearances of the Appellants were for and on behalf of the others; that the appeal against this decision was dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeal by the Supreme Court as reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. A133.