2010 (8) TMI 526 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty - Job worker - The respondent was a job worker of one M/s. Shilpi Prints and as per the documentary evidence in the form of job work challans the respondents are supposed to have manufactured draw twisted yarn out of the POY sent to them by M/s. Shilpi Prints a 100% EOU - The department s contention is that the respondent actually manufactured texturised yarn and this was cleared illicitly in the domestic market - The statement of Shri Dharmesh Kantilal Shah partner of M/s. Shilpi Prints who had stated that they had got the texturised yarn manufactured there is no other evidence available. Held that just based on the statement of the partner of the Shilpi Prints penalty cannot be imposed when there is no inculpatory statement of the job worker and documentary evidence are against the department - Therefore the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against setting aside of penalty imposed on job worker for alleged manufacturing and clearance of texturised yarn in domestic market instead of draw twisted yarn as per job work challans.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad involved a dispute regarding the penalty imposed on a job worker for allegedly manufacturing and clearing texturised yarn illicitly in the domestic market instead of draw twisted yarn as per job work challans. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the penalty, prompting the Department to file an appeal. The Department contended that the job worker had engaged in misdeclaration and suppression of facts. However, the Tribunal noted that the only evidence supporting the Department's claim was the statement of a partner of the principal company, M/s. Shilpi Prints, who asserted that texturised yarn was manufactured. In contrast, the documentary evidence and the statement of the job worker indicated that draw textured yarn was indeed produced, consistent with the job work challans.

Upon evaluating the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal found that the case primarily relied on conflicting statements, with the partner of M/s. Shilpi Prints providing contradictory information. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly emphasized the importance of documentary evidence, given the inconsistency in the partner's statements. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's decision to rely on the documentary evidence and the job worker's statement, which supported the contention that draw textured yarn was manufactured. Notably, the absence of any incriminating statement from the job worker further weakened the Department's case. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal lacked merit, as the evidence favored the job worker and did not substantiate the Department's allegations of manufacturing and clearing texturised yarn in violation of regulations.

In the absence of compelling evidence to support the Department's claims and considering the documentary evidence and consistent statements of the job worker, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the penalty imposed on the job worker. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of documentary evidence and the lack of incriminating statements from the job worker in determining the outcome of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Department was dismissed, affirming the decision to reject the imposition of penalties on the job worker.