Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Anand Engineering Products Pvt. ...
- CitationAppeal No.170/2010
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals), in deciding whether a unit is an extended unit of the principal manufacturer, must examine the evidence to ascertain whether that unit is known to the excise authorities and forms part of the principal manufacturer's unit; a conclusion that extended units are known to excise law without such factual basis cannot be sustained. Where the record shows job work was carried out at the alleged extended unit, the position under the job work provisions applies, and if the job work was not registered, the consequences prescribed by law follow; but before reaching that conclusion, the authority must first examine on facts whether the extended unit is part of the principal unit and is known to the excise records and excise law. The matter is to be independently examined without any pre-determined view as to invoking the extended period of limitation, the dispute being confined to the use of capital goods in the extended unit, and each proceeding being treated as an independent proceeding on its own merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.170/2010, dated 16.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI APPELLANT
Versus
M/s. ANAND ENGINEERING PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Ms. Cecilia Parthasarathy, AC (AR)
For the Respondent Ms. Minchu Mariam Punoos, Adv.
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 25-06-2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 40705 / 2015
The Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct to say that extended units are known to excise law without any basis and when distance was 5 kms. It is his duty to examine respective evidence to ascertain whether the extended unit is known to the excise authority and is part of the principal manufacturer. If so, he can draw proper conclusion bringing out evidence in support of his decision.
2. It appears from record that there was job work done in the so-called extended unit. In case of job work, law is well codified. If the job work is not registered necessary consequence of law shall apply. Therefore, in all fairness he has to examine whether the extended unit is part of the principal unit and whether known to the excise record and excise law. Only upon such factual examination of the issue she shall reach to proper conclusion. Accordingly, appeal is remitted to Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Learned counsel at the end submits out that this matter should be independently examined without any pre-determined mind as to the invoking of extended period, since the matter in controversy is only limited to the use of the capital goods in the extended unit. Learned counsel is correct to propose that every proceeding being independent proceeding, assessees should be fairly dealt in law on the matter in controversy which is subject matter of the present appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 25-06-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 25.06.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 25.06.2015
Fair Order Typing 25.06.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch
3 E/00689/2010
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free