- (1.)The sole question for our consideration in these appeals is whether the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') was justified in accepting the contention of the respondent department that the three appellants herein are so interconnected and have mutuality of interest among themselves, as to club their production for the purpose of either denying them the benefit of the exemption limit or to assess them as one unit for the purpose of levy of central excise duty.
(2.)The tribunal while dismissing the appeals of the appellants herein agreed with the collector of central excise, Pune that the three units (the appellants herein) procured raw materials together, they had common credit facilities from the suppliers, had common stock accounting and planning, they are inter-dependants in 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 so inter-related that the department was justified in clubbing their total production as production from one unit for the purpose of Central excise Act.
(3.)In these appeals, Shri Joseph Vellapally, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants contended, even according to the material relied upon by the respondents, it is clear that the three units are independent units, though, may be having certain common facilities for the sake of convenience, which does not make the unit inter-related. At any rate, it was argued on behalf of M/s. Supreme Washers (P) Ltd. , the appellants in civil appeal no. 6161 of 1999 that it being a limited company, by virtue of the circular nos. CER (5) - central excise dated 1.3.1956, the said appellants could not have been clubbed with the two other appellants, because the said circular being a statutory circular is binding on the department.