9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice dated 25-3-2003 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I demanding duty of Rs. 1,65,64,008/- in respect of the goods manufactured and cleared by M/s. MIE and M/s. FEIL without payment of Central Excise duty and for appropriation of Rs. 30 lakhs deposited by appellant during the investigation. Show cause notice also proposes the imposition of penalties on the firm as well as on the individuals. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 94,41,485/- in respect of the goods manufactured and cleared by M/s. MIE and an amount of Rs. 71,22,523/- in respect of the goods manufactured and cleared by M/s. FEIL without payment of duty. The adjudicating authority also appropriate the amount already deposited by the appellant. Personal penalties were also imposed on the firm and as well as on the individuals. 3. The contention of the appellant is that a combined show cause notice was issued on 25-3-2003 by Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I to M/s. MIE and M/s. FEIL. On that day factory of M/s. FEIL was not within the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I but the same was under the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainable. The appellant relied upon the various decisions of the Tribunal in support of their submissions that duty is not to be confirmed merely on the basis of assumption and consumption in absence of direct evidence on record. The contention of the appellant is also that the evidence relied upon by the adjudicating authority, the impugned order the kachha Slip No. 69, dated 8-9-2002 wherein an amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been shown against the name of One Sh. Agarwal whereas in the ledger the credit amount was shown as Rs. 2200/- only. The contention of the appellant is that the demand is confirmed on the ground that this 20,000/- mentioned in the private record is the trade discount given to the dealer, therefore, the clearance was assumed on the basis of the amount of trade discount which is not permissible. The contention of the appellant is also that as per the statement of Shri C.V. Mathew, Accounts Officer of M/s. FEIL, the M/s. Modern Electrical is a fictitious firm and the invoices of M/s. Modern Electrical were used for the clearance of goods manufactured by M/s. FEIL. The contention is that as M/s. FEIL is not within the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central Excise, De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as issued on 25-3-2003 whereas the territorial jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi were bifurcated by virtue of Notification No. 14/2003, dated 8-3-2002 with effect from 1st November 2002. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Trade and Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 2001 (136) E.L.T. 767 held that the Commissioner of Central Excise has no jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice in respect of the manufacturing activity undertaken outside the territorial jurisdiction of Commissionerate. The Tribunal in the case of I.T.I. Equatorial Satcom reported in 2001 (136) E.L.T. 156 set aside the order whereby the duty was demanded in respect of erection/installation of micro earth stations at various cities all over the country by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore by holding that Collector of Central Excise have no jurisdiction to issue a demand in the case of those cities which were beyond the geographical jurisdiction of the said collectorate even if such installation held to be amount to manufacture. 8. The Revenue relied upon the decision of Raletronics Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) in support of their contention that the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand from M/s. MIE. In these circumstances, we proceed in respect of the demand confirmed on M/s. MIE. 10. In the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise in Para 62 held as under :- In the present case, I find that both the noticee manufacturers were manufacturing the same goods with the same Brand name i.e., MIE owned by one of the noticee manufacturer M/s. Modern Industrial Enterprises. As per the requirement of the buyer the goods were clandestinely removed either from M/s. Modern Industrial Enterprises or M/s. Florida Electrical Industries Ltd. as stated by their dealers also in their statements, without maintaining any statutory record other than the private pocket ledger maintained by Sh. Subhash Tuteja. The party had been given several opportunities to identify the volume of clearance from both the units separately for the relevant period. Despite the opportunities for calculating the clearance value separately the parties did not ascertain the clearance value of their units separately. In view of the practice, of not accounting the raw material as well as the finished goods to clear the goods clandestinely without payment of duty followed by the noticee m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
