2015 (7) TMI 500 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - non-existence of manufacturing facility - Rule 20 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - manufacutring of goods at the premises which does not belong to assessee - whether any goods were manufactured by the Appellant at Plot No.16-17, Hari Ichcha Industrial Estate, Behind M. Jagdamba Mills, A.K. Road, Surat or not - Held that - The statements of the proprietors of all the above units working on the date of visit were recorded under which all those persons stated that no unit by the name of the Appellant ever worked at the declared address. Shri Arora, Proprietor of the Appellant was not able to explain as to whether the goods supplied to the consignee M/s AGFPL were manufactured at the declared address. - Excise clerk of the Appellant stated that the entries are made only on paper as per the direction of Shri Shaym Sunder Arora, Proprietor. In view of the investigation conducted by the Central Excise officers with respect to Appellant pre-ponderence of probability goes in favour of the Revenue that no goods were manufactured at the declared address by the Appellant. - authenticity of rewarehousing certificate and the receipt of the finished goods at the factory premises of the consignee are doubtful and cannot be considered as authentic evidences to establish that the goods were manufactured by the Appellant because the transportation of the goods from Surat to Medak (A.P.) is not established by Appellant. Further, in the absence of any manufacturing facility available with the Appellant, pre-ponderence probability goes in favour of the Revenue that goods were manufactured by the Appellant - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether goods were manufactured by the Appellant at the declared address.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Appellant challenging the OIA No. RKA/46/SRT-I/09, where the First Appellate Authority upheld most of the OIO No.29/ADC-PS/OA/2006. The Appellant contended that they manufactured grey fabrics at the declared address and supplied them to a consignee. The Appellant presented re-warehousing certificates and an adjudication order to support their claim. However, during the investigation, it was found that other units were operating at the declared premises, and statements indicated no knowledge of the Appellant's existence. The Appellant's Excise clerk mentioned that entries were made on paper as directed by the proprietor. The Adjudicating authority raised concerns about the lack of evidence regarding transportation of goods and the authenticity of re-warehousing certificates.

The Appellant relied on case laws emphasizing the preference for documentary evidence over oral statements. The Bench analyzed previous judgments related to the importance of documentary evidence in different factual scenarios. It was noted that in the present case, where no manufacturing activity was proven, the authenticity of re-warehousing certificates was questioned. The lack of evidence regarding transportation of goods and the absence of a manufacturing facility with the Appellant led to the conclusion that the preponderance of probability favored the Revenue's position. Consequently, the Bench upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, rejecting the appeal filed by the Appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of substantial evidence in establishing claims, especially in cases where manufacturing activities are in question. The decision underscored the significance of documentary evidence and the need for clear proof to support assertions, ultimately leading to the rejection of the appeal.