9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d name MAURYA falling under sub-heading 8450 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (earlier under T.I. 33C of erstwhile Central Excise Tariff) during the period from September 1984 to February 1988 without making proper and correct declaration to the department and without obtaining a Central Excise licence and have clandestinely cleared the same without cover of proper Central Excise documents and without payment of Central Excise duty. It appears that the washing machines manufactured in the said premises have been fragmented and cleared in the names of the units namely M/s. Raja Enterprises and M/s. Nitika Enterprises by wrongly availing the benefit of exemption under Notfn. No. 83/83, dated 1-3-1983 and 85/85, dtd. 17-3-1985 and Notfn. No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 to which they are not entitled to. It appears the said M/s. Raja Enterprises and M/s. Nitika Enterprises have no independent premises, plant and machinery for manufacturing washing machines, but appears to have cleared the washing machines manufactured and cleared by M/s. Tripta Udyog from the premises situated at Patel Puttaiah Industrial Estate, I Main Road, Deepanjali Nagar, Bangalore-26. It further appears that the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereas it also appears that the Proprietors/Proprietrix of the concerns referred to in Sl. No. 1 to 4 namely S/Sri Indermohan Singh Gulati, Smt. Harsh Gulati, M.C. Parameshwar, R.S. Gulati and Sri Manjit Singh have actively planned, executed, connived, aided and abetted in the contravention of the aforesaid Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the names of the aforesaid concerns and have concerned themselves in the fragmentation of production, clearance and transportation of goods without proper Central Excise documents in gross undervaluation and clearance without payment of duty on washing machines manufactured and cleared from one and only premises which they knew or had reasons to believe were liable for confiscation under Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. The Commissioner after considering the replies permitting cross-examination concluded that the charges as made in the Show Cause Notice are true and he ordered :- (a) Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 7,14,452.91 on the goods manufactured and cleared from the premises of PPIE under the name of M/s. Raja Enterprises, M/s. Tripta Udyog and M/s. Nitika Enterprises without observing the Central Excise formalities and without paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Maurya Brand washing machines. He held this firm to be a facade and a dummy, created to show the clearances of and made from the premises of M/s. Tripta Udyog. However, in the same order, relying upon the material in the same notice, he after holding that M/s. Nitika Enterprises does not have independent existence to deal on principal to principal basis he relies upon the sales made on invoices of M/s. Nitika Enterprises to M/s. G.J. Ghaisers Co., Pune to be sales made on principle to principle basis, for the same Maurya brand washing machines. The Show Cause Notice also relies upon and Annexure D-4 thereto and lists out the details of washing machines sold by M/s. Nitika Enterprises to direct customers from their factory. These sale invoices are for the period from September 1984 to February 1988. When the Show Cause Notice relies upon this annexure of sales being effected from the factory of M/s. Nitika Enterprises as material evidence during the entire period of existence of M/s. Nitika Enterprises and based on this material evidence, the Commissioner is coming to a conclusion that the sale effected by M/s. Nitika Enterprises are on principle to principle basis. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption for which the individual units are not otherwise eligible. There is also no dispute that different units could pool their resources for better profitability, but when it comes to fiscal sacrifice, the law has to be strictly interpreted as otherwise it would adversely affect the real small scale units. The production of these two units could be clubbed. However, this clubbing could be effected only if it is ascertained that there was no separate entrance and that there was a wall between the two units i.e. of M/s. Tripta Udyog and M/s. Raja Enterprises. The ld. Advocate for the appellant vehemently contested that these two units have separate Income Tax Returns and have separate SSI registrations and there was a wall between the two units as well as there was separate entrance. This factual position has been contested by the ld. SDR. We are not in a position to establish these facts from the records as placed before us. Similarly, the ld. Advocate had taken very strongly the point of limitation by bringing on record the visits of the Central Excise officers to M/s. Tripta Udyog premises. We therefore find that when the production of these two proprietary units have to be c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
