9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 105/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 and has confirmed the demand for Rs. 2,61,418.50 on the appellants. A penalty of Rs. 7.50 lakh has also been imposed on the appellants. 2. The facts in brief in this case can be stated as below : 2.1 M/s. Geeta Valves are having a factory for manufacture of various types of valves. It is a private limited company having four directors. M/s. Process Control is a partnership firm having three of the directors of M/s. Geeta Valves and one minor son of the fourth director, as partners. It is also re- gistered as a SSI unit for the manufacture of various types of valves, they have filed a declaration for availing exemption from licensing control, stating tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectors of Geeta Valves are partners of M/s. Process Control, they cannot be construed to be one and the same. He cited case laws in this regard. 3.2 The main allegation is that M/s. Process Control did not have adequate machine for manufacture of valves of sizes 200 mm and above. They have produced a Chartered Engineer s certificate that the machines installed in Process Control could produce valves upto 600 mm size. This evidence cannot be discarded, in preference to some statements from unskilled workers. 3.3 For purposes of availing exemption under Notification 105/80, Process Control have given the details of capital investment to the jurisdictional Excise officers, which, after verification, have been accepted. Hence, Process Cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory premises, before removal. When these Government purchasers have dealt with only Process Control and paid for the goods received only to Process Control, in the absence of any positive evidence that all these goods were cleared only from Geeta Valves, no adverse conclusion can be drawn against the appellants. 4. Shri V.K. Puri, the learned SDR mainly contended as below : 4.1 Panchnama clearly indicates that even testing equipment is not there. It brings out that with the machines available in Process Control, only phasing work can be done. Hence, Process Control was only doing job work for Geeta Valves, who were clearing the goods in the name of Process Control. Hence, purchase orders, bills etc. raised in the name of Process Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oducing valves of sizes 200 mm and above. Hence, such valves are alleged to have been actually produced by Geeta Valves but shown as clearances by Process Control. (iii) Manager of Process Control draws salary from Geeta Valves and some persons are commonly deployed in both the units. (iv) Electricity connection was not separate for Process Control and they draw power from Geeta Valves. (v) Test Certificate of Process Control have been signed by sales manager of Geeta Valves and some orders have been procured by Geeta Valves for Process Control. 6. We are to consider whether the above factors could justify the loading of the clearances of Process Control on to the value of clearances of Geeta Valves for demanding duty on the latter. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te identity of the two units. This is a settled law and hence has to be answered in favour of the appellants, especially, when all other Government Departments have recognised Process Control as separate entity. 8.4 It is not the case of the Department that Process Control is a dummy unit having no machinery for production of valves. The main thrust of the allegation is that all the machines required for producing valves of 200 mm and above were not found in Process Control. However the statements of the manager, technician and workers do not admit that there was no production of any valves in Process Control. They indicate manufacture of valves by Process Control. Merely, because certain machines required for producing valves of 200 mm a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unicipality and State Government Department, normal presumption is that they would have got the goods from Process Control and their dealings may not be with a Benami. No evidence is brought in to rebut this normal presumption. Lack of machines for producing bigger size valves may arise a suspicion but that suspicion has to be investigated into for supporting the case. Mere suspicion cannot substitute evidence for establishing the case. In any case, in these circumstances, benefit of doubt is to be given to the appellants. 8.5 Though it is not disputed that Manager of Process Control is drawing salary from Geeta Valves, it is explained by the Director of Geeta Valves in his statement that this arrangement was to enable the person to get p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
