1998 (3) TMI 492 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against confirmation of Central Excise Duty demand and penalties imposed on the company and individuals.

Analysis:
The case involved three appeals challenging the Additional Collector's findings confirming a demand of Rs. 90,407/- as Central Excise Duty and penalties imposed on M/s Ashwin Chemicals, Shri Pradipbhai R. Patel, and Shri Jayeshbhai J. Patel. The Central Excise Officers observed discrepancies during a visit to the factories, where M/s. Ashwin Chemicals was manufacturing products under the name of M/s Dinesh Chemicals to avail exemptions under specific notifications.

Statements from involved parties revealed that production activities were carried out at M/s Ashwin Chemicals, but goods were sometimes shown as manufactured by M/s Dinesh Chemicals. The Appellants contested the allegations, arguing that power consumption was not solely indicative of production, and there were discrepancies in the assumptions made by the authorities. The lower authorities upheld the demand after considering the submissions.

The Appellants' counsel argued that the evidence was based on presumptions and assumptions, emphasizing the lack of concrete proof that goods were actually manufactured by M/s Ashwin Chemicals but attributed to M/s Dinesh Chemicals. The counsel cited relevant case law to support the argument that presumption and suspicion cannot substitute for evidence.

The Department highlighted irregularities in record-keeping and reiterated that production was solely conducted at M/s Ashwin Chemicals, as confirmed by the Partner and Clerk of the company. The Department emphasized that no contrary evidence was produced by the Appellants to refute the statements made by their representatives.

The Tribunal noted that the statements of the Partner and Clerk of the company corroborated each other, indicating a commonality in manufacturing activities between M/s Ashwin Chemicals and M/s Dinesh Chemicals. Despite typographical errors in the documents, the figures suggested a pattern of manufacturing and clearance of goods from both units, supporting the demand of duty.

Ultimately, the Tribunal confirmed the duty demand and upheld the penalties imposed on the company and individuals, considering the circumstances of the case and the amount of duty involved. The appeals were rejected based on the corroborated statements and the pattern of functioning observed between the two firms.