9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith bank. In another store room 56 bags containing man-made non-cellulosic spun yarn of counts 3 to 4 and weighing 367 kg. net were found. Officers found present, Shri Sunil Kumar, a partner in the sister concern of the appellant firm, namely, M/s. Ambika Woollen Mills and some workers were engaged in packing of miscellaneous goods. Six powerlooms, 1 wrap machine, 7 handloom and 400 spindles were installed in the premises but spindles were not working at the time of officers visit. On enquiry, Sh. Sunil Kumar informed that the said yarn has been received by them for fabrication from M/s. Beteks International and M/s. Bholly Industries, Amritsar. The officers retained the above yarn drawing representative samples. Officers made further enqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of spun yarn brought from the factory premises of M/s. Ambika Woollen Mills, Amritsar and yarn seized in the form of blankets seized from the business premises of M/s. Bholi Industries with option to redeem on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It demanded duty at the appropriate leviable rate on yarn already manufactured and removed under challans dated 27-9-1984 of M/s. Betex International Bholi Industries and imposed personal penalty as under : M/s. Ambika Spinning Mills Rs. 50,000/- Sh. Sunil Kumar, partner of M/s. Ambika Woollen Mills Rs. 1,000/- Sh. Vivek Wahi, partner of above Ambika Spg. Mills Sh. Ramesh Kapoor Rs. 1,000/- Sh. C.B. Gupta Rs. 1,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clandestinely removed it without payment of Central Excise duty. Additional Collector has held this allegation to have been proved for following reasons: (i) Ambika Spinning Mills (Appellant) and M/s. Ambika Woollen Mills located at the same location are sister concerns having common office and common electricity connection and also the fact that they were maintaining common records. (ii) It has also been not denied that workers had been employed by M/s. Ambika, Spinning Mill. The plea that the employed workers were utilised for installation and erection of machinery only is not plausible in the face of the fact that the records seized from their premises show attendance of not only general workers but of the spinning master too ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... because nothing depends upon it. As far as second reason is concerned, it has been explained that the spinning master was there for installation of spindles, etc. and also for supervision, and that is quite reasonable explanation and there is no basis for coming to the conclusion that attendance of spinning master has nothing to do with the erection or installation of machinery and his only job was to attend to spinning. The inference that workers were employed not only for installation and erection of machinery but for the purpose of spinning has also no basis because we perused the original records produced by the D.R. and it is not possible to conclude from the records that these workers were engaged in spinning work at the relevant time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 984. Shri Harimohan partner of Seema Spg. Mills has in his statement stated that they have sold these spindles alongwith accessories and other machinery to the appellant in June, 1984 and that spindles were shifted from their factory on 10-7-1984. This fact and this statement are not disputed in the impugned order. Then installation would also take sometime. The appellant has also produced following documents: (i) Letter dated 29-9-1984 written by the appellant to the Regional Director, ESI Corporation that the appellant had commissioned his factory from 19-9-1984. (ii) Letter dated 12-10-1984 of the Chief Inspector of the factory to the appellant intimating them that according to the report submitted by the factory inspector based on h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same could be linked with the appellant. Even the documents which were proved to be of the appellant did not justify the inference drawn by the Additional Collector about the factory of the appellant having been commissioned during the relevant period. If that be so, then the goods in question, did not belong to the appellant nor they have anything to do with them. The other parties are not in the appeal before us and it is not necessary to discuss those aspects of the case which pertain to other noticees. 7. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order, as far as it pertains to the appellant, cannot be sustained. So, we pass the following final order : The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is modified as far as it re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
