9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Scrutiny of records revealed a number of discrepancies and malpractices. Wrong maintenance of accounts was admitted by the persons concerned with the affairs of M/s. Swastik. In addition to the clandestine removals and undervaluation, it was found that kitchen sinks had been removed under the misdescription of laboratory sinks. It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 10-5-1989 that M/s. Swastik had evaded the payment of central excise duty of Rs 11,19,070.64 by suppression of facts. Duty on the seized goods was also demanded. Penal provisions were invoked. The duty was demanded applying the extended period of limitation. In addition to M/s. Swastik, show cause notice was issued to Shri G.B. Mishra, Senior Executive (Marketing) and Shri M.P. Palriwala, Managing Director, Shri Suresh Kumar Jalan, Proprietor, M/s. Classic Distributors, and M/s. Jagsaw Ceramics (P) Ltd., were also made the co-noticees. A corrigendum dated 25-8-1989 was issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, to incorporate the facts disclosed by Shri Suresh Kumar Jalan, Proprietor, M/s. Classic Distributors, in his statement dated 9-8-1989, subsequent to the issue of the show cause notice dated 10- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the charge of clandestine removals was not substantiated and that the value of the fittings was not includible in the value of the ceramic wares. There was no justification for demanding duty for the extended period and for imposing any penalty. He relied upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of Mahabir Engineering Works v. CCE, Chandigarh, 1994 (71) E.L.T. 937 (T), to plead that ISI specifications and trade understanding were relevant for classification. In reply, Shri S.N. Singh, SDR, submitted that the whole case was based on the documentary evidence and that it was a clear case of manipulation of records. The contraventions have been admitted by the Managing Director of the appellants company and their authorised signatory, and their statements had not been retracted. The way various manipulations have been effected by the noticees had been referred to in the adjudication order at pages 238 and 239 of the paper book. Various submissions made on behalf of the appellants had been discussed at pages 14 to 17 of the impugned order at pages 245-247 of the paper book. He pleaded for rejection of the appeal. In rejoinder, the learned Advocate mentioned that their classi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishra further offered that the company was prepared to pay duty on the kitchen sink which had been removed in the guise of laboratory sink. It was also seen that this statement of Shri Mishra had been agreed to by Shri M.P. Palriwala, Managing Director, as per his statement dated 27-4-1989. This position was also confirmed by Shri Bimal Puri, Marketing Manager, in his statement. Shri P.K. Palriwala, Partner of Ceramix Syndicate, Indore, in his statement stated that they had purchased kitchen sinks although in the documents they were referred to as laboratory sinks. The goods were sold by them as kitchen sink. In their catalogue, they were shown as kitchen sink and that it was only in the invoices that they were indicated as laboratory sink. The same position was confirmed by S/Shri Jagmondevdas Gupta, Sammer Bansal, Proprietor, M/s. Ansal Trading Co., Delhi, and Suresh Kumar Jalan, Proprietor, M/s. Classic Distributors, Madras, in their statements recorded by the Central Excise Officers under the provisions of the Central Excises Act. 7. Under Heading No. 69.07, the following goods were described - Ceramic wares for laboratory, chemical or other technical uses; ceramic throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell, we are neither having any information nor any control over them , is to side track the issue. Thus, the ISI specification for laboratory sinks will not be applicable to the classification of the goods in question under the relevant tariff entry as discussed above. 8. In the case of Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. CCE, Rajkot, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 402 (Tribunal), the Tribunal while disposing of the stay application of the applicants had observed that laboratory sinks were prima facie classifiable under sub-heading No. 6908.10 and not heading No. 69.07 of the Central Excise Tariff. In the case of Phoenix Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 1994 (73) E.L.T. 45 (Tribunal), the Tribunal had observed that in commercial parlance the kitchen sinks were known as sanitarywares. The Tribunal had also observed that the HSN Explanatory Notes could be a good guide in this regard. 9. We have analysed all relevant aspects of the matter and we agree with the view taken by the adjudicating authority that the sinks manufactured and removed by the appellants were classifiable as sanitarywares under Heading No. 69.08 and not as laboratorywares under Heading No. 69.07. 10. As regards the charges of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tablished fact that LLC is not cleared; without fittings as such the invoices raised seprately is not correct, but the assessee is required to pay duty thereon as it is an integral part of LLC and LLC cannot be functioned without fittings. Thus, they are required to pay duty amounting to Rs. 28,652. 25 shown in Annexure E and same have been signed by Shri M.P. Palriwala and Shri G.B. Mishra being true and correct. 16. The valuation formed the subject matter of Annexures F G and has been discussed by the adjudicating authority at page 12 of his order. The adjudicating authority had recorded that no specific defence has been adduced in this regard and that in the facts and circumstances of the case the specific charge made in the show cause notice was established. It is seen from the statement dated 26-4-1989 of Shri G.B. Mishra, Senior Executive (Marketing), an authorised person in the company, that the prices shown in Annexures A B were agreed to as correct. He had also offered that the company was prepared to pay the duty as worked out in those annexures. 17. As regards the limitation, the appellants had on their own changed the classification of the disputed go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
