2019 (5) TMI 1340 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of duty paid - no manufacturing activity taking place - fake supplier - demand based 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 appellants - HELD THAT - As there is no adverse report against the appellant by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities, therefore, the appellant M/s Aar Bee Industries is a manufacturer located in the state of Jammu Kashmir and is entitled to claim refund of the duty paid in cash in terms of Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002. No proceedings are sustainable against the appellants - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Allegations of non-existence of farmers supplying raw material.
2. Allegations of non-manufacture of goods by the appellants.
3. Investigation conducted by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Merrut.
4. Evidence supporting the manufacturing activities of the appellants.
5. Comparison with similar cases and tribunal judgments.
6. Legal entitlement to exemption and refund of duty paid.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the allegations that farmers from whom the appellants purchased raw materials were non-existent. The investigation by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Merrut, concluded that due to this non-existence, the appellants did not receive inputs, manufacture goods, or sell any products. The case hinged on the lack of evidence regarding the supply chain from farmers to the appellants.

2. The second issue concerns the assertion by the appellants that they were indeed engaged in manufacturing activities. The appellants provided detailed evidence to support their claim, including transportation records, reports from various departments verifying their operations, and the inspection of their manufacturing facilities. They argued that the presence of trucks for transportation and various official certifications proved their manufacturing activities.

3. The investigation conducted by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Merrut, formed a crucial part of the case. The tribunal noted discrepancies in the investigation findings, especially in comparison to reports from other departments and the lack of adverse reports from jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities regarding the appellants' manufacturing operations. The tribunal scrutinized the investigation process and its conclusions to determine the validity of the allegations against the appellants.

4. The evidence presented by the appellants, including reports from different departments, certifications of manufacturing activities, and transportation records, played a pivotal role in establishing their manufacturing operations. The tribunal considered these pieces of evidence as crucial in determining the credibility of the appellants' claims and refuting the allegations of non-manufacture made against them.

5. The tribunal referenced a similar case involving M/s Nanda Mint and Pine Chemical Ltd., where the tribunal had observed discrepancies in the investigation findings and supported the appellants' claims based on concrete evidence. By comparing these cases and tribunal judgments, the tribunal highlighted inconsistencies in the investigation process and emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence in such matters.

6. Finally, the tribunal analyzed the legal entitlement of the appellants to exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 and the refund of duty paid. Based on the evidence presented and the lack of concrete evidence against the appellants, the tribunal concluded that the proceedings against the appellants were not sustainable. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting the appellants the benefit of the exemption and refund of duty paid.

In conclusion, the tribunal's detailed analysis of the issues involved highlighted the importance of concrete evidence, discrepancies in the investigation process, and the legal entitlement of the appellants to exemption and refund. The judgment emphasized the need for thorough scrutiny of investigation findings and the significance of supporting evidence in legal proceedings.

← Previous Next →