1996 (4) TMI 355 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether there were more than one manufacturer in the same factory premises.
2. Imposition of penalties and duty related to the manufacture of excisable goods.
3. Confiscation of Crank shafts and imposition of redemption fine.
4. Denial of exemption under specific notifications.
5. Allegations of substitution of Crank shafts and duty demand.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this appeal was whether two appellants, Banara Enterprises and Banara Udyog, were engaged in manufacturing excisable goods in the same factory premises. The Commissioner of Central Excise imposed penalties and demanded duty based on the belief that the two parties were operating as more than one manufacturer in the same location. However, the Tribunal examined various pieces of evidence, including lease deeds, bills, and ground plans, to determine the actual manufacturing setup. It was found that Party No. 2 had acquired its own machinery and was operating in a separate shed adjacent to Party No. 1's factory building. The Tribunal concluded that there was no substantial evidence to prove that the two parties were carrying out manufacturing activities from the same factory, and thus, the Commissioner's conclusions were deemed unsustainable.

2. The Commissioner had imposed penalties and demanded duty relating to the clearances made by Party No. 2 during specific financial years. However, the Tribunal found that the evidence presented did not support the allegations made by the Department. Additionally, the charge of substitution of Crank shafts was not backed by any substantial inquiry results. Consequently, the duty demand and penalties imposed were set aside, as the Tribunal deemed them unjustified based on the lack of concrete evidence.

3. The confiscation of Crank shafts and the imposition of a redemption fine were also challenged in the appeal. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the panchnama and statements provided regarding the seized Crank shafts. It was observed that the evidence did not conclusively prove the allegations of substitution. Therefore, the confiscation of Crank shafts and the redemption fine were deemed unsustainable and set aside by the Tribunal.

4. Another issue addressed in the appeal was the denial of exemption under specific notifications to the appellants. The Tribunal found that the denial of exemption was not justified, as there was no concrete evidence to establish that the appellants did not qualify for the exemptions under Notification No. 105/80 and 77/83. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the denial of exemption based on the lack of substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner's decision.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the demands of duty, penalties, and confiscation made by the Commissioner of Central Excise were not sustainable based on the lack of concrete evidence and inconsistencies in the Department's allegations. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals of the appellants were allowed, providing relief from the penalties and duty demands imposed by the Commissioner.