9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... napati Enterprises, Subh Enterprises, Raj Enterprises and M/s. Shri Ram Enterprises. It was the allegation that a scheme was formulated whereby these firms are supposed to have manufactured the sacks from the fabrics made by the appellant and sent for printing to Balaji Industries. From there they were then either directly sent to the customers or to the Bombay office for sales to its customers from there. The idea behind this, it is alleged, was to avail the benefit of Notification 175/86, which exempted the goods on the basis of the value of clearances, was not available to the appellant (since its clearances exceeded the limit), and/or the benefit of Notification 65/87 which granted exemption to the goods manufactured without the aid of power, (which was not since it used) could be claimed in respect of these goods and duty evaded to that extent. 3. In this order, the Commissioner, after some discussion, finally came to the conclusion that these four units which were stated to have manufactured these goods did not exist. He finds that the goods were in fact manufactured by the appellant in its factory. 4. Advocate for the appellant, on this basis, contends that for the charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the figures which he included in the register included figures of clearances made from other four units, and that therefore, his statement alone is insufficient evidence to establish manufactured and clearance shown in the RG1 register. It is also contended that since there is no explanation for the instances in which the figures recorded by Biswani are lower than that the figure of clearance recorded in the RG1 register, the statement and the record themselves are not true and cannot be relied upon. 8. Biswani, on cross examination by the advocate representing the appellant before the Commissioner, had not said any significant thing or anything which contradicted his earlier statement. In reply to the question, he says that he used to go across the unit perhaps called Balaji, and on verifying figures above 20 (SIC) used to maintain details of printing day to-day basis. I used to prepare monthly summary of production. I do not give separate figures of production relation to HVPL. Management has advised me to give total production. This is what is relied upon to say that these figures of Biswani book include clearance of goods manufactured by other four units which were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated to be an associated concern of the appellant (the same group of the appellant) at the relevant time; that he was found sitting in the office of the appellant on the date in question, are not in our view sufficient to come to the conclusion that there was no manufacture of the bags or their clearance from this unit. He has produced various books and records relating to clearance. It is therefore not possible for us to agree that Dhoot s concern was not in existence or that no manufacture took place. 12. We are, however, not able to take the same view with regard to the other three concerns. Let us consider the case of Ganapati Enterprise and Shubh Enterprises. The proprietor on record of the former was Rasiklal Sheth and the later his son Jitendra. Jitendra has said that he knew nothing about the affairs at all and refers the others to his father. His father Rasiklal Sheth says, among other things, There are no activities in M/s. Shubh Industries but 30 workers shown as working in M/s. Shubh Industries, but are working in M/s. Hari Vishnu Packaging Ltd. We do not have any records. We are not aware of this factory and 2-3 months before M/s. Hari Vishnu Packaging Ltd people t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... planation of sale are significant. We note that the machinery was absent after the factory was closed, but the explanation tendered to it cases grave doubt as to the transactions which might have taken place. Kolte was confronted with the fact that gate passes were issued on 20-4-1990 and on 2-8-1990, after he said the factory was closed in March, 1990. To this the answer is that he does not know who issued the gate passes. He gave earlier ambiguous answers with regard to some other discrepancies found in the gate passes. It is difficult for us to escape the conclusion that there was in reality no manufacture took place in these units. 14. We must reiterate here that while there are two separate parts of the department s case, we cannot look at one totally independently of the other. In the given facts of this type, an overall view has to be taken and not looking at each separate segment solely as an independent issue to be resolved. The overall effect of the evidence relating to the production in the HVPL, which is not recorded, and the position with regard to the other four units which we discussed above leads us to conclude that the department to the manufacture of HVPL shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
