Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2004 (9) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... No. 2 as detailed therein. 2.1 The company, appellant No. 1 is a 100% Export-Oriented Unit located at Jaipur and engaged in the manufacture of Wrist Watches by assembling the parts of the watches essentially imported as per letter of permission issued by the Development Commissioner NEPZ, Noida. They have also got licence for private bonded warehouse issued under Section 58 of the Customs Act. The factory premises of the company were visited by the officers - firstly on 18-9-2003 and at that time, the officers observed that the goods stored in the storeroom were not as per the details given in the import documents and the goods were also stored in the locally procured plain cartons bearing no shipping mark to establish their identity. On .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... date of import till the arrival in the private bonded warehouse and thereafter utilisation of the same in the factory by the appellants, was monitored by the officers of the Department and as such, the question of clandestine removal of the goods/raw material from the bonded warehouse or from the factory premises by the appellants did not arise. The Counsel has also contended that similarly there is no evidence to prove the procurement of indigenous watch parts by the appellants from the local market and utilisation of the same in the manufacture of export quality of wrist watches. Moreover, the Central Excise duty, if any, could be demanded only from the manufacturer of those indigenous watch parts from whom the appellants allegedly made .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the appellant-company. But in our view, on these grounds, the charge of clandestine removal/diversion of the imported watch parts by the appellants to the Indian market could not be legally inferred. There is no dispute that the imported watch parts were brought by the appellants in their private bonded warehouse after clearance. It also remains disputed that they had imported the wrist watches and the foreign currency had been received in India in lieu thereof. There is no documentary or oral evidence to prove the clandestine disposal of the imported watch parts by the appellants in the Indian market. None from the market has come forward to claim the purchase of those parts from the appellants. No document was also found from their fa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... From the statement of Shri Ishwar Dass Moolrajani, the appellant No. 2, wherein he did not deny that the sister concerns of the appellants namely, M/s. Ruchiram and Sons and M/s. Rajasthan Watch Manufacturers were also manufacturing watches under the brand name, it could not be inferred that the imported watch parts were diverted to those companies or to any other company/individual in the market, by the appellants in a clandestine manner. The presence of brand name on some of the parts also could not be made basis for holding that there was cladestine removal of the imported watch parts by the appellants. The market enquiry to ascertain the origin of the watch parts and watches seized by the department could not be used against the appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... them from the market. In the absence of any such evidence, it is difficult to hold that the allegations of procurement and user of the indigenous watch parts by the appellants in the manufacture of export watches, stand proved against them. Strangely enough, duty in respect of the alleged procured indigenous watch parts has been confirmed against the appellants when those parts were never manufactured by them. It is well settled that the duty is payable on the excisable goods only by the manufacturer at the time of clearances and not by the buyers who could only be at the most prosecuted/penalised under Rule 209A if the manufacturer was found to had evaded the appropriate duty. But here, even the name of the manufacturer who manufactured t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates