Case: M/S. Supreme Washers(P) Ltd., Mumbai Vs. The Commissioner Of Central Excise,Pune

2. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals of the appellants herein agreed with the collector of Central Excise, Pune that the three units (the appellant herein) procured raw materials together, they had common credit facilities from the suppliers, had common stock accounting and planning, they arein manufacturing operations, had common stock of raw materials and semi furnished goods, were having common use of the machinery between the three units, were having common marketing arrangements and free flow of finance between themselves. On these basis, the tribunal concurred with the Collector that the three units in fact are sothat the Department was justified in clubbing their total production as production from one unit for the purpose of Central Excise Act.

Reasoning:
we are in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that there is mutuality of interest between the appellants. The reliance placed by the Tribunal on facts like the three companies having common management under Shri S.L. Raheja, having common procurement of raw material, having common stock accounting and planning, havingin manufacturing operations, having common stock of raw materials and semi finished goods, having common use of machinery between the three units, having common marketing arrangements and free flow of finance between three units cumulatively indicatesof the three units with each other as alsocumulatively establishes the appellantsce with each other, hence, the arguments of the appellants on this factual score must fail.6. In regard to the second contention of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 6161 of 1999, it is seen from the Circular dated 1.3.1956, which according to the appellants have been reiterated by another subsequent Circular No. 6 /82 dated 29th of May, 1992 by the Central Board of Excise Customs, New Delhi that a limited company should be treated as a separate entity for the purpose of exemption limit. If that be the position in law, then there may be some jurisdiction for the appellant to urge, so far as M/s. Supreme Washers (P) Ltd. is concerned, it being a limited company, its production can not be clubbed with the other units. However, since this aspect of the case and applicability of the Circulars referred herein above was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, we are in agreement with the suggestion made by the Learned Attorney General that it will be just and proper to remand this matter, for this limited purpose, to the Tribunal for examining the applicability of the Circular relied upon by the Appellants, M/s. Supreme Washers (P) Ltd.