9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise visited the premises of one M/s. Jayalakshmi Machine Works and recorded statements of Shri K. Nandagopal, a partner of the firm and also drew up a Panchnama consequent to the deposition made by Shri Nandagopal. Statements of Shri V. Venkatapathy, Director of the appellant company and Smt. Indira, partner of M/s. National Machine Works were. recorded and Shri C.V. Balakrishnan was also interrogated. The officers also, seized a number of documents belonging to the appellant as well as M/s. Jayalakshmi Machine Works and M/s. National Machine Works. After further investigations, show cause notices were served on the appellants as well as M/s. Jayalakshmi Machine Works and M/s. National Machine Works which sought to club the values of clearances made by M/s. Jayalakshmi Machine Works and M/s. National Machine Works to the value of clearances/sales made by the appellants for the purposes of exemption under Notification 105/80 on the grounds that M/s. Jayalakshmi Machine Works and M/s. National Machine Works were not capable of producing any goods and the machinery shown in their record as having been produced and sold by them was actually produced by the appellants. The appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Smt. Indira proved the case of the Department. 3. Making his submission on the application for additional evidence Shri R. Swaminathan, Learned Consultant prayed that the following documents issued by various Government Agencies. which were available during the proceedings before the Collector may be permitted to be taken on record. Sl. No. Particulars Page No. in Paper Book 1. Letters dated 6-6-1981, 20-6-1983 4-7-1984 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. 82-84 2. Particulars of factory and machinery details certified by the Inspector of Factories containing the Inspection Notes of the Inspecting Authority under the Factories Act. 91-93 3. Assessment/Correspondence notes and compounding notice with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 94-101 4. Assessment orders passed by the Commercial Tax Department 102-111 5. Statement recorded from the person in-charge of National Machine Works by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer on 20-10-1982. 112 6. Income-tax assessment orders against National Machine Works and United Machinery Works ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne Works and the appellants had filed a declaration for availing exemption from payment of duty for the year 1983-84 and such declaration was verified by the Superintendent. He contended that a dummy or non-existent firm could not have filed a voluntary declaration before the Customs authorities. He added that the provisional registration certificate as a Small Scale Industry granted by the Department of Industry Commerce to M/s. National Machine Works also proved that it was not a dummy unit. He added that this was further corroborated by the fact that the Income Tax Department had also granted registration to M/s. National Machine Works under the Income Tax Act, 1961 after satisfying themselves about the existence of the firm. He submitted that the Collector had based his finding only on the facts that M/s. National Machine Works did not have any three phase power connection. He submitted that in arriving at his finding the Collector had ignored the letter written by Shri Kasthuri Swamy Naidu and the letter dated 13-8-1982 written by M/s. Kannan Industries and also the electricity maintenance account showing expenses of Rs. 2974.65 incurred on electricity charges. He added that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery was based on conjecture and surmises since the Collector had not disputed the fact that a number of items were either got manufactured on job work basis or were bought out from the market. He added that details of the machinery actually fabricated by National Machine Works was disclosed in their books of account. He submitted that the Collector had also erred in placing reliance on the statements of K. Venkatapathy and Smt. K. Indira which were not voluntary and had been recorded under the dictate of the officers of the Department. 4. Appearing on behalf of the respondent, Shri Somesh Arora, Ld. JDR prayed for rejection of the application filed by the appellants for production of additional evidence. He contended that the material now sought to be relied upon by the appellants was not before the adjudicating authority and there was no evidence to show that they were prevented for reasons beyond their control from relying upon the said evidence. He contended that the appellants could not be permitted to make out a fresh case at this stage. Making his submissions on the points raised by the appellants in regard to the findings of the Collector in the impugned order, he submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules is an exception and that exception should be exercised sparely and judiciously . Supreme Court held in State of U.P. v. M.L. Srivastava that additional evidence should not be permitted to be produced to enable the party to fill up any lacuna, specially when the party could have produced such evidence before the lower authorities but failed to do so without sufficient cause. The same view was affirmed in the case of Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 537 (SC). Following the ratio of these decisions we do not find any reason to allow the application filed by the appellants for placing on record additional evidence. The application is accordingly rejected. 6. As regards the Collector s finding in the impugned order, the appellants have mainly contended that even though the facts in the case of National Machine Works were similar to the fact in the case of Jayalakshmi Machine Works, the show cause notice seeking to treat the value of goods claimed to have been manufactured and sold by Jayalakshmi Machine Works as goods produced and sold by the appellants was dropped, whereas goods produced and sold by National M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hines supplied during 1982-83 has rightly concluded that such large number of heavy machines could not have been manufactured by M/s. National Machine Works with the aid of single phase power even if their claim that some of the parts were manufactured on their behalf by others on job work basis and some others were purchased from outside is accepted as correct. In support of his finding that M/s. National Machine Works were not equipped to manufacture the machines claimed to have been manufactured and sold by them during the relevant period, the Collector has also referred to the Mahazar drawn by the officers on 29-1-1984 in regard to the machine installed in the premises of M/s. United Machinery Works. He has pointed out that when compared with the declaration filed by the said manufacturer for claiming exemption in terms of Notification No. 46/81, one planning machine, one radial drilling machine and one lathe installed in their premises were found to be in excess and M/s. United Machinery Works had conceded that one planning machine of M/s. National Machine Works was kept in their premises. It is seen that these findings of the Collector that M/s. National Machine Works had nei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
