2018 (10) TMI 877 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of duty refunded in cash - area based exemption under N/N. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 - adjudicating authority has confirmed demand on the grounds that the farmers are non existence ensuring non supply of raw material by commission agents to J&K based units and absence of evidence of power by the appellant and no manufacture and sale taking place - Held that - The check post movement of trucks which were carrying inputs as well as finished goods were found entered - also, the appellant has produced the evidence of the entry of all the transport vehicles i.e. trucks which have entered in the state of Punjab and have left the state of Punjab, as the same has been certified by the Punjab Sales Tax Department having entries of entry and exit all the vehicles, therefore, it cannot be said that the raw material/finished goods have never entered or left in the state of Jammu & Kashmir, therefore, the allegation on the basis of the investigation conducted by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Merrut is not sustainable. During the period of investigation itself, the appellant continued their activity by procuring inputs from U.P and selling the goods after manufacturing to the U.P based buyers and the Department allowed to continue the same during the course of investigation which shows that the allegation on the basis of investigation conducted at the end of Commissioner of Central Excise, Merrut is not sustainable that the appellant is not manufacturer the goods. As there is no corroborative evidence to show that the appellant were not manufacturing the goods, therefore, the allegation alleged in the show cause notice is not sustainable. Without bringing any concrete evidence against the appellant on record, the proceedings against the appellant are not sustainable - the appellant were manufacturing unit in the state of Jammu & Kashmir is entitled for benefit of the exemption Notification No. 56/2002- CE dated 14.11.2002 and claimed the refund of duty paid through PLA - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the appellant's manufacturing activities.
2. Validity of the investigation conducted by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut.
3. Admissibility of evidence provided by the appellant.
4. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the appellant's manufacturing activities:
The core allegation against the appellant was that they did not manufacture the goods as claimed. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, argued that the farmers who allegedly supplied inputs were non-existent, and thus, the commission agents did not supply inputs to the appellant. Consequently, it was alleged that the appellant did not manufacture any goods. However, the appellant provided substantial evidence, including reports from the Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the entry and exit records of trucks at toll posts, indicating the movement of raw materials and finished goods. Additionally, various departments, including the Pollution Control Department and the District Industries Department, verified the appellant's manufacturing activities. The Tribunal found these evidences credible, concluding that the appellant was indeed engaged in manufacturing activities.

2. Validity of the investigation conducted by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut:
The investigation by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, was challenged on the grounds that it was based on assumptions and lacked concrete evidence. The Tribunal noted that the investigation generalized that all purchases of crude Mentha oil by the appellant were bogus without specific evidence. The report from the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jammu, contradicted Meerut's findings, stating that regular checks confirmed the appellant's manufacturing activities. The Tribunal found the investigation by Meerut Commissionerate unsustainable due to its reliance on assumptions rather than concrete evidence.

3. Admissibility of evidence provided by the appellant:
The appellant presented various pieces of evidence, including reports from the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, and the Deputy Commissioner, Toll Post Lakhanpur, confirming the movement of consignments. Additionally, the appellant provided evidence of periodic inspections by the District Industries Centre and other departments, all of which supported their manufacturing claims. The Tribunal found these evidences credible and noted that the Revenue did not dispute these facts. The Tribunal also referenced a similar case (M/s Arora Aromatic & Others) where the evidence provided by the appellant was accepted, further supporting the appellant's case.

4. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002:
The appellant claimed exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE, which was challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that the appellant, being a manufacturing unit in Jammu & Kashmir, was entitled to the exemption. The Tribunal emphasized that the show cause notice issued to the appellant was based on assumptions and lacked concrete evidence. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the exemption and the refund of duty paid through PLA.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was engaged in legitimate manufacturing activities and was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE. The investigation by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, was found to be unsustainable due to its reliance on assumptions and lack of concrete evidence. The evidence provided by the appellant was deemed credible, leading to the dismissal of the proceedings against them.

← Previous Next →