9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CB ) and M/s. Precision Instruments Corporation (hereinafter referred to as PIC ), a proprietary concern were suppressing their value of production and clearance and evading duty, and that in respect of goods cleared without payment of duty, invoices were prepared in the head office of these companies at Arun Chambers, Tardeo, Mumbai and signed by Shri J.P. Mody, Managing Director of M/s. J.P.M. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., which is the proprietor of M/s. HEC and Managing Director of M/s. MCB; that invoices prepared in the head office with different code letters and separate serial numbers allotted to them as compared to those prepared in the factories, Central Excise Officers simultaneously visited the factory premises of M/s. HEC, M/s. MCB an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overed by any excise documents, that M/s. HEC had initially paid duty on its clearances during the period 1978-79 and 1979-80 at the appropriate rate but subsequently applied for refund of the duty paid during these periods on the ground that clearances were within the ceiling limit of Rs. 30 lakhs prescribed in the relevant SSI notification in force during that period, and two refund claims were sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner. It was found that M/s. HEC had cleared distribution boards, etc., manufactured by them to MSEB, Chandrapur during the period October, 1981 to May, 1982. Investigations carried out at MSEB shows that the goods were received without the cover of Central Excise gate passes. Some of the goods were already insta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d refund on the basis of fraudulent representation and alleging that M/s. MCB had deliberately shown part of their production and clearances in the name of M/s. PIC and others, thus suppressing their production and clearance and evading duty. The show cause notice proposed duty demand from M/s. HEC and M/s. MCB as well as penal action. In respect of seizure of goods at various places the owners were called upon to show cause against confiscation of the goods. 4. The notice was adjudicated by the Collector of Central Excise who confirmed the demand of duty on M/s. HEC, M/s. MCB and imposed penalties on both, confiscated the seized goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine; both the units filed appeals before the Tribunal whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y has also relied upon independent material. The case of the department is that the invoices for products (MCBs) manufactured by M/s. MCB have been issued in the name of M/s. PIC who is a manufacturer of voltmeters and ammeters and not a manufacturer of MCBs. Therefore, invoices for MCBs issued in the name of M/s. PIC are not genuine but only an attempt to pass of the products of M/s. MCB in the name of M/s. PIC. The defence of M/s. MCB. that it had entered into an agreement in June, 1997 with M/s. PIC for manufacture of MCBs for M/s. MCB cannot be accepted in the face of the findings of the Commissioner that the agreement is more in the nature of specifying the intentions of the two parties to the agreement and there is no material on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the aid of power. Further the benefit of the notification is not available to the appellants in the absence of any claim in any classification list so as to enable the assessing officer to verify the correctness or otherwise of such claim. We, therefore, reject the contention regarding manufacture at Arun Chambers without the aid of power. Since the same contention has been raised by M/s. HEC we reject the said claim made by M/s. HEC. The claim of M/s. MCB certain goods were merely traded but have been included in the clearances for computation of duty demand is also rejected as unsubstantiated. 9. The contention that since the factories of M/s. MCB and M/s. PIC were under lockout since October, 1981 and, therefore, no goods could have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods were exempt from payment of duty under Notification 46/81-C.E. dated 1-3-1981 is not substantiated. No details of workers, etc. has been submitted to the department and therefore, the unsubstantiated claim cannot be accepted. The contention regarding no use of power is common to M/s. HEC and M/s. MCB and, therefore, our finding on this aspect as regards clearance of M/s. MCB is equally applicable against M/s. HEC. M/s. HEC also places reliance on certificate issued by a project consultant and Excise and Customs consultant to support its contention that goods were manufactured at the terrace of Arun Chambers. The certificate of the project consultant does not even specify what is the product manufactured by M/s. HEC even though HEC manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
