9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1295 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine manufacture and removal - unaccounted purchase and clandestine packing/re-packing/labelling of excisable goods - retraction of statements - extended period of limitation - Jurisdiction - HELD THAT - An apparent admission about packing, labelling and re-packing of the two wheeler automobile parts which amount to manufacture for the other brands. There is apparent admission that the brand names of the Companies like Hero Honda, TVS, Yamaha, etc. were without any permission/ agreement and the same was known to the appellant to be an illegal activity. This admission of the proprietor of appellant stands duly corroborated from the statement of the appellant s accountant cum computer operator. Hence, the subsequent contention of the appellant about not manufacturing the goods of other brand is not acceptable. The seizure of such goods at the time of searches is, over and above, corroboration to the aforesaid admission. Retraction of statements - HELD THAT - The question as to whether the admissions can be confirmed on the strength of confessional statements stands settled by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of KI. PAVUNNY VERSUS ASSTT. COLLR. (HQ.) , C. EX. COLLECTORATE, COCHIN 1997 (2) TMI 97 - SUPREME COURT wherein it was held that confessional statement of accuse if found to be voluntarily can form the sole basis of conviction. Only if it is retracted, the Court is required to examine whether it was obtained by threat, duress or promise and whether the confession is trivial. In the present case, we find that there is no retraction of the aforementioned admission/confession on the part of the proprietor of the appellant Shri Sanjay Jain - Thus, the same has rightly been considered by the adjudicating authority as the basis of confirming the demand for manufacture of goods of other brands and also for denying the entitlement to SSI exemption Notification to the appellant. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The fact of non registration coupled with the non retracted statement of the proprietor of the appellant and also coupled with the seizure of goods of other brands from the premises of the appellant is sufficient to hold that the appellant had intentionally not got the registration with the sole objective to evade the payment of excise duty. In the given circumstances, the Department was justified while invoking the extended period of limitation. Jurisdiction - HELD THAT - The impugned show cause notice specifically recites that the search warrants for the premises of Dwarka were issued by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi II. In fact, the officers from both the Commissionerate conducted the search at Dwarka. We also observe that a separate show cause notice was issued to Dwarka unit of the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi II which was adjudicated by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division V vide Order dated 06.11.2012. Hence, the Commissionerate having appropriate jurisdiction over Dwarka had already taken an appropriate action against the Dwarka factory of the noticee - the impugned show cause notice has no fault lying as far as the jurisdiction is concerned. Appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
1. Central Excise duty liability on appellant for packing, labelling of MRP stickers of two-wheeler automobile parts. 2. Allegations of unaccounted purchase, clandestine packing, and evasion of excise duty. 3. Time limitation for show cause notice. 4. Jurisdiction of show cause notice issued by Delhi Commissionerate. Analysis: Issue 1: Central Excise duty liability The appellant, engaged in packing and labelling two-wheeler parts under their brand name, was found liable for excise duty due to activities amounting to manufacture. The Department alleged evasion of duty, lack of registration, and maintaining inadequate records. Show cause notices were issued, and the demand for excise duty was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The appellant contended that they fell under the SSI exemption limit and challenged the evidence against them. The Tribunal upheld the demand, citing admissions, seized goods, and corroborative evidence as sufficient grounds for confirming the duty liability. Issue 2: Allegations of evasion and clandestine activities The Department based its case on admissions by the appellant's proprietor regarding packing parts of other brands without permission, which was considered illegal. The appellant argued lack of evidence and reliance on inadmissible documents. However, the Tribunal found the admissions voluntary and admissible, supporting the duty demand. The appellant's failure to register, coupled with the intentional evasion of duty, justified the extended period of limitation invoked by the Department. Issue 3: Time limitation for show cause notice The appellant contended that the show cause notice was time-barred, but the Tribunal disagreed. The deliberate non-registration, subsequent registration post-investigation, and deposit of a significant amount indicated an intent to evade duty, justifying the extended limitation period. The show cause notice was upheld for the period beyond the normal limitation. Issue 4: Jurisdiction of show cause notice The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the show cause notice issued by the Delhi Commissionerate for their Dwarka unit. The Tribunal found that appropriate actions had been taken by the Commissionerate with jurisdiction over Dwarka, and the notice was issued following due process. Therefore, the jurisdictional challenge was dismissed. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Order confirming the duty demand, dismissing the appeal based on sufficient corroborative evidence, voluntary admissions, intentional evasion, and valid jurisdiction of the show cause notice. The case law cited by the appellant was deemed inapplicable, and the Order was upheld.
|
