9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Neon Signs (Ch. 9405) and non-illuminated neon sign (Ch. 8311.00). It is a proprietary firm owned by one Lalit K. Soni situated in the same building is another firm M/s. Sign Crafts owned by his wife engaged in similar activity enjoys exemption under Notification 11/88 (N.T.) as its turnover is below the exemption limit. A perfect set up for Central Excise officers' visit and investigation. They did and the allegations are : (1) M/s. Sign Crafts (S.C) is a dummy unit of M/s. Bombay Neon Sign. (2) M/s. BNS clear 'fresh'(?) goods in the guise of repair works. (3) M/s. BNS clears illuminated signs in the guise of non-illuminated. (4) Since M/s. Sign Crafts is a dummy unit, its clearances are liable to be clubbed with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o manufacturing activity is ever carried out in M/s. Sign Craft's premises. (h) Shri Shinde representing Smt. Sunita L. Soni, admits that no manufacturing activity goes on in M/s. Sign Craft, and that except cutting and grinding machines no machinery is installed in M/s. Sign Craft. Illuminated Sign Board cannot be made without electricity. (i) The average monthly electricity bills of M/s. Sign Craft from 88 to 92 is only Rs. 25/- to 30/- whereas of M/s. Bombay Neon Signs is Rs. 1,200/- to 1,300/- which only proves that no manufacturing activity goes on in M/s. Sign Craft. (j) One Kasinath Divekar, an employee of M/s. Sign Craft admits that the premises of M/s. Sign Craft are used only as a storage place for goods made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. The Commissioner's conclusion briefly are that M/s. Bombay Neon Sign and M/s. Sign Craft are separate entities; that there was no attempt to remove fresh goods in the garb of repair jobs to evade payment of duty by M/s. Bombay Neon Sign and that M/s. Bombay Neon Sign were manufacturing both types i.e. illuminated and non-illuminated neon signs. She however held that the assessee (M/s. Bombay Neon Sign) did not follow the procedure under Rule 173H in so far as the Neon Sign found in the premises of M/s. Sign Craft, confiscated it but allowed to be redeemed it on payment of fine. The Commissioner also held that M/s. Bombay Neon Sign exceeded the exemption limit of Rs. 15 lakhs per year under Notification No. 175/86 to the extent of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the evidence. The ld. Advocate on behalf of the respondents strongly supported the Commissioner's order. He argued that the Commissioner in fact dealt with the evidence on merits with the help of the case law. He pleaded that there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner. 9. We observe that the Revenue's plea that the Commissioner in the impugned order, failed to appreciate the evidence in the form of statements of employees, electricity bills, workers wage register etc. before concluding that M/s. Bombay Neon Sign and M/s. Sign Craft are independent of each other, is not correct. The Commissioner precisely observed that the fact that the two units are situated in close proximity, that both have some common employees, that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r or not the units have to be clubbed for the purpose of determining the eligibility to the benefit of SSI Notification No. 175/86. The Department's evidence in the forms of employees' statements has to be viewed in the light of what the employers themselves have to say about the nature of their firms. Further electricity consumption being so low in M/s. Sign Craft's firm is explained by the proprietress of the firm. The Commissioner's reliance on the decisions in Steel Traders [2003 (160) E.L.T. 1105 (T) = 1994 (55) ECR 348] and Alpha Toys [1994 (71) E.L.T. 689] cases is appropriate. Basically what the Commissioner has done is to take into consideration the nature of evidence the Department gathered and decided whether or not the dummy nat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturing only illuminated signs and not non-illuminated at all, is not substantiated. She relies on the decisions in the case of M/s. Crystlic Resins v. CCE, 1985 (19) E.L.T. 285 wherein the Tribunal held quote "......The utmost accuracy and certainty must be the aim of a notice of this kind and not a shot in the dark like the notice before us" unquote. The Commissioner holds that to come to conclusion that the assessee in the present case is only manufacturing illuminated signs but creating a make believe that non-illuminated signs were also being manufactured by him, evidence of a higher quality is required. Merely sighting one or two instances of mismatch in the invoice and gate passes, is not enough to quantify evasion of duty. We o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
