9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the company and penalty of Rs. 25 lacs on each of the two Directors of the company. 2. The Commissioner, on the basis of the material on record, found that although 31 shipping bills were said to have been presented at the Customs house, Kolkata, for processing, these were never in fact presented for actual shipment at Haldia docks. All the endorsements made on back side of the shipping bills and related ARE-1s were forged. The fake/forged bills of lading appeared to have been obtained to substantiate that the goods had been physically exported. He came to a finding that a conspiracy to detract the ongoing investigation was deliberately planned by way of floating the forged letter supposedly signed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aldia Port that he had given detailed investigation report and confirmed that no shipment of goods under the said shipment bills was made. It, therefore, prima facie, appears that the finding of the learned Commissioner that there was no export of goods, as claimed by the applicant noticee No. 1 company made through Haldia Port, was borne out from the cogent material on record. 3.1 It appears that the request for cross-examination of the witnesses was duly considered and the learned Commissioner has observed that even assuming but not accepting that the goods had left Dewas to Kolkatta, the fact remained that they were not presented at Haldia Port and not shipped in the vessel and therefore, it was not possible to accede to the reques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 5 of the appellant company was a separate manufacturing unit and therefore, the appellant was not a manufacturer and was a trading unit and therefore, the excise duty was not payable. This contention is erroneous because the manufacturer is admittedly the appellant company which may be having several units, yet the liability of the Company as manufacturer would, prima facie, remain. The existence of different factories of a manufacturer or its separate trading units will not absolve the manufacturer from its liability to pay excise duty. Admittedly, the trading unit was owned by the manufacturer company i.e. the appellant and therefore, it cannot be accepted that no liability to pay the central excise duty arose merely because the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel was, fair enough to say that the appellant company is a running concern. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that this is not a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit. We, therefore, direct that there shall be interim stay of the impugned order on the appellant company (Appeal No. E/3480/05) depositing the entire amount of Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,83,75,454/- (Rupees three crore eighty three lac seventy five thousand four hundred fifty four only) within 12 weeks from today failing which the appeal will stand dismissed. On the said amount being deposited, there will be waiver of pre-deposit of the rest of the amount payable by the said company under the impugned order. 8. As regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
