9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under Rule 25 (1) ( c) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on applicant company No. (1) and personal penalty of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs imposed on Shri Sudipta Dey, partner of the said company. 2. It is a case of Revenue that during the period 2004-05 to 2008-09 the applicant No. (1) had manufactured and supplied the components/parts of Railway wagon without payment of duty to different units of Indian Railways showing the said goods as trading items in their books of accounts and thereby indulged in evading the Central Excise duty involved thereon. It is noticed that the Applicant is registered with NSIC and RDSO as manufacturer and that they had procured the tender/order from Railways for supply of the goods claiming them to be manufacturer. Investi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods supplied to different units of Railway had been confirmed and penalty imposed. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the applicants has submitted that they had not manufactured the impugned goods. It is the contention that in usual course of business, the applicants submit tenders for supply of Railway parts such as Striker Casting Wear Plate, Lock Lift Lever Hook, Universal Lock Lift Connector etc. Since the manufacturing process in applicant's own factory became unworkable because of labour unrest, the applicant since 2000/2001, started outsourcing of the orders of Railway components from the job workers. Such job workers were many during the relevant period, these being M/s. S.S. Enterprise, Saraswati Industries, Navi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods in semi-finished conditions to the applicant company for further processing. Mr. Dey has stated that they inscribed 'AEW' which is their trade name on their product alongwith manufacturing date. He admitted that before supply of the goods to Railway, they arranged for inspection of Sleeves in their factory. The Ld. A.R. further invited attention of the Bench that in many cases the so called job workers were found to be non-existent and few of them which were found existing stated that they received the raw materials from the applicant company and supplied the goods processed by them which were not fully finished. He, therefore, vehemently opposed the applicant's contention that the goods supplied to Railways by the applicant company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and others did not present themselves to furnish their statements before the authorities. It is recorded by the Adjudicating authority that the job workers who appeared for giving their statements, admitted that goods supplied to the applicant were in semi-finished goods and the same were processed and inspected for quality control at the premises of the applicant. These findings prima facie contradict Applicant's contention that the goods are procured by them from the traders/ job workers. As regards the submission that the same issue was dropped by the earlier period, we find that under para 7.21 of the order, the adjudicating authority has given the categorical finding that the applicant's contention is untenable as the period involved a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
