2011 (6) TMI 684 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Lack of evidence - Dummy unit - Whether there was specific defence raised before the adjudicating authority that M/s. New Vision was dealing with the products manufactured by other manufacturer also - Held that - There is no explanation forthcoming as to what prevented the appellants from seeking assistance of the adjudicating authority for issuance of a summons to the Proprietor of the said firm to produce such documents if they were so relevant on the point in relation to the appellants case - in the absence of sufficient cause being shown for non-production of the document in question either before the adjudicating authority or even before the lower appellate authority, and no sufficient cause being shown for delay in production of the documents, nor relevancy established - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Application for production of additional evidence at the appellate stage; Allegation of dummy unit; Justification for non-production of documents before adjudicating authority.

Application for production of additional evidence at the appellate stage:
The appellants sought to produce four invoices to support their defense, claiming the invoices were previously unavailable as they were in possession of another entity reluctant to produce them. The appellants argued the invoices were crucial to counter the allegation that the other entity was a dummy unit, showing it dealt with goods from various manufacturers. However, the department objected, stating the appellants failed to provide a reasonable cause for not presenting the documents earlier. The department contended that all relevant documents were provided along with the show cause notice, and the appellants' request lacked justification for the delay in producing the invoices.

Allegation of dummy unit:
The appellants contended that to establish the other entity was not a dummy unit, the disputed documents were essential. They claimed they were unable to respond to the show cause notice due to the unavailability of certain documents, despite requesting them in a letter dated 5-8-2007. However, the department argued that the letter referred to un-relied documents and did not justify the delay in filing a response to the show cause notice issued on 16-11-2006. The department highlighted that the documents in question were acquired just before the impugned order, and no explanation was provided for not presenting them during the adjudication process.

Justification for non-production of documents before adjudicating authority:
The appellants failed to demonstrate a valid reason for not producing the disputed documents before the adjudicating authority or the lower appellate authority. The department emphasized that the application seemed to be an afterthought, lacking a sufficient cause for the delay in presenting the documents. Additionally, it was noted that the appellants did not seek assistance from the adjudicating authority to summon the proprietor of the other entity to produce the documents, if they were indeed crucial to the case. Consequently, the application for the production of additional evidence was dismissed due to the absence of a satisfactory cause for the delay and the lack of established relevance of the documents.