9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion of facts wrongly availed of exemption of duty under Notification No. 71/78, with intent to evade the duty. (C) Whether the appellant have manufactured any unaccounted dyes in the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 and liable to pay any duty on it. 2. The facts of the case are as under :- (i) Appellant firm started the business of manufacture of Synthetic Organic Dyestuff covered under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 14(D) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, now Chapter No. 32 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 from 12-10-1970 and a licence was granted on 24-6-1971. Particulars of partners and their retirement are noted in it. One of the partners, Rajnikant Popatlal Shah was attending the Factory work at Ahmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of manufacture of dyes. Each were making notes in a separate note book to pass on to the subsequent shift employee. Shri M.R. Shah had not engaged any technical person as he himself is a technical man. In his absence, the employees of the appellants' factory were looking after his work and making notes in the lower half of the same note books. (iv) On 12-10-1979 the Central Excise Officers from H.Q. Office visited the factory of the appellants and verified Raw Material Register, Batch Register, Gross Tare and Net Weight Registers, R.G.I. Register, Gate Passes alongwith the physical stock lying at different stages. No irregularity of any kind was noticed. Similar examination was carried out in respect of M/s. P.J. Texdyes and there also no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records, we find that the Department had knowledge of the fact of M.R. Shah, Proprietor of P.J. Texdyes, being the son of Rajnikant Shah, one of the partners of the appellant firm. There is no prohibition against a blood relative of a partner of a firm commencing his own business of manufacture of the same goods. The proximity of the 2 premises and sharing of staff is also not prohibited under the CESA or Rules. Both units were purchasing their own raw material and manufacture was carried on with separate machinery, equipment, power and workers. Separate statutory records were being maintained. There is no evidence to establish manufacture of unaccounted dyes. No show cause notice was issued to P.J. Texdyes, though clearance value of both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
