ORDER
S. Kalyanam, Vice President
1. These appeals are directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, dated 2-4-1992.
2. Shri Ramakrishnan, the learned Consultant for the appellants submitted that the charge against the appellants in respect of proceedings commenced was that the four units i.e. (i) PSNK Stampings (ii) Namkar Stampings (iii) Balaji Stampings and (iv) Sudarshan Stampings are not independent units and M/s. Sudharasan Stampings, M/s. Namkar Stampings and M/s. Sree Balaji Stampings have been created for the purpose of wrongly availing the benefit of SSI Notification and therefore clearances of all these four units should be clubbed together for the purpose of assessment and quantification of duty. Shri Ramakrishanan submitted that in the impugned order, the learned adjudicating authority has not given any detailed finding at all by discussing the evidence as to how and on what basis legally and factually the said 3 units can be held to be appendage of the other unit i.e. PSNK Stampings. The learned Consultant submitted that the mahazar would bear out that there were seizure of stampings from each unit and this would show that each unit had the facility for manufacture of stampings by itself and the learned adjudicating authority had not adverted much less dealt with this aspect in the impugned order. The learned Consultant further submitted that even in the show cause notice the Department did not specifically mentioned the documents on which reliance was sought to be placed and the reasons given in the impugned order for clubbing of the clearances are very vague and general in nature and it would not satisfy the test of law laid down by various Courts. The learned Counsel further submitted that in para 16 of the impugned order the adjudicating authority held that the manufacturing operations of the four units were common. There is absolutely no discussion with reference to the evidence as to where the actual manufacturing activity took place, the number of workers employed for a particular unit, details of machinery installed whether there was machinery in each unit capable of producing stampings and other relevant factors etc. The learned Consultant referred to the finding of the adjudicating authority in para 17 of the impugned order contending that there has been financial accommodation between these units without charging any interest. The learned Consultant submitted that these findings are bereft of any details. It was submitted that in respect of these important and vital aspects of evidence, the learned adjudicating authority should have entered a detailed findings with reference as to which unit lent the money, on what dates and how much and what was the terms. In the absence of detailed finding in this regard, the appellants would be disabled from putting forth effectively their defence. It was further submitted that the adjudicating authority has not referred to in para 17 of the impugned order the fact of repayment of loan for some years without interest. It was argued that the finding of the adjudicating authority in para 16 of the impugned order that all the four units manufacture electrical stampings and the equipment used by all the four units are same is not correct in view of their specific plea that each unit has separate machinery and the details of which have also been given before the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority has not considered these details and given a finding. The learned Consultant in this context referred us to the details of machinery and tools etc. owned by each appellant, filed on page 19 of paper book No. 4. The learned Consultant also placed reliance on the ruling of the Special Bench-B in the case of Jagjivandas & Co. v. C.C.E., Bombay-II reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 441 (T) in support of his plea that occasional use of buffing machine of one firm by others, mutual financial transactions without charging interest etc. are not conclusive circumstances to show that the clearances are to be clubbed. The learned Consultant contended that the above ruling of the Tribunal was challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal by their ruling reported in E.L.T. Vol. 44, Part I, Page A-24 & 25. It was submitted that the crux of the question is with reference to the club-bability of the clearances of various units and the relevant facts put forth before the authorities should have been considered in detail and a finding entered and in the absence of the same, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
3. Shri Murugandi, the learned DR while generally adopting the reasoning of the adjudicating authority submitted that since various plea adduced by the appellants have not been dealt with in detail in the impugned order, and a finding given, the matter may be remanded for reconsideration of the issue for giving a detailed finding on the relevant issues. The learned DR further submitted that so far as consumption of electricity is concerned, it is not disputed that three appellants had a common connection while one appellant had a separate connection. The learned DR fairly conceded about the seizure of stampings from three separate units in regard to which there is no finding in the impugned order. In regard to the use of common electric meter, the learned Consultant in reply relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kinjal Eledricals Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 327 (T).
4. We have considered the submissions made before us. On going through the entire records and after taking note of the submissions extensively made by the learned Consultant for the appellants and also by the learned DR appearing for the Department, we find that the learned adjudicating authority has not dealt with the various pleas in detail and given a detailed finding. In reply to the show cause notice, the appellants have clearly stated that the machinery and tools are owned by each unit separately the details including their values are as under :
————————————————————————–
Sl. Name of the factory On Machinery On tools
No. Rs. Rs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. M/s. Namkar Stampings (Please 4,27,390.82 1,03,713.50
see ages 81C, 81A, 150A of
Annexure X file for evidence)
2. M/s. Sudharsan Stampings 1,86,277.57 1,52,605.60
(Please see pages 62A, 74, 97,
117)
3. M/s. PSNK Stampings (Please 1,93,419.52 85,342.40
see pages 110, 65, 83,111B & 132
of Annexure X file)
4. M/s. Sree Balaji Stampings 1,89,113.23 76,440.00
(Please see pages 122, 40A, 54A,
54 & 74 of Annexure X file)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also find that a number of bills have been filed evidencing purchase of machineries by various units from various parties. Even though these bills were filed before the authorities, they have not been referred to in the impugned order much less finding given. Even in respect of the financial accommodation inter se between the four units, the learned adjudicating authority, as rightly contended by the learned Consultant has not given a detailed finding about the quantum of money lent, the date of payment, the repayment factor etc. We do not find any finding or discussion on repayment made by some units as contended by the learned Consultant with interest and without interest for some years. We note that the ledgers of the units were also produced before the adjudicating authority to show that there was lending and repayment of money by the units for various years i.e. 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89. This aspect has not been referred to in the impugned order. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, since we feel that various pleas and the documentary evidence produced before the adjudicating authority which have a bearing on the issue to be decided have not been adverted to much less considered and a finding entered, we are left with no other option except to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for reconsideration of the issue afresh in accordance with law. It will be open to the appellants to put forth all pleas as are open to them under law in support of their plea that all the units are separate and distinct and therefore, clearances are not clubbable for the purpose of assessment. Remanded accordingly.