9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent: Sh. A.K. Jain, AR ORDER Per Rakesh Kumar:- The facts leading to filing of this appeal and stay application are, in brief, as under:- 1.1 M/s. Satkar Enterprises, Akbarpura, Ahmedgarh, Distt. Sangrur (Punjab.)(hereinafter referred to as Appellant ) are registered with Jurisdictional Central Excise Authority under Rule 3 of the Customs(import of Goods at concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 for importing Crude Palm Oil, Non-edible grade [CPO-(NEG)] at concessional rate of duty under Notification No.21/2002-Cus dt.01.03.2002, as amended by Notification No.20/2004-Cus dt.16.01.2004 for use of in the manufacture of soap. The Appellant during period from 01.10.04 to 15.01.05 imported 2721.054 MTs of CPO-(NEG) valued at Rs. 6,28,36,288/- on payment of Customs duty at the concessional rate of 20% adv. This CPO-(NEG) was supposed to have been used by the Appellant for the manufacture of soap. Though Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, on the basis of the Appellants records issued End Use Certificates certifying that the imported CPO-(NEG) was used in the manufacture of the soap, the DGCEI Officers, on receipt o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Sh. Avatar Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Garcha Transport, Ludhiana, he stated that no goods of the Appellant had been transported by him, that company is engaged in supply of construction material such as sand, etc. for the last 3-4 years and is not in the business of transporting of any goods, that they have only one truck, having Registration No.PAT-7430, which is meant for transport of construction material and that the GRs of M/s. Garcha Transport, Ludhiana shown to him have not been issued by him. 1.5. On verification of ledger of the Appellant company for 2004-2005, it was found that outstanding payment against M/s. Dee Ess Trading Co., New Delhi; M/s. Ellora Sales, Jodhpur; M/s. Aashana Enterprises, Amritsar; M/s. Vikas Enterprises, Jaipur; M/s. Pankaj Enterprises, Ludhiana and M/s. Shree Ganesh Trading Co., Manohar Nagar, Ludhiana were Rs.91,45,266/-, Rs.1,27,02,400/-, Rs. 35,93,070/-, Rs.36,39,000/-, Rs.1,05,02,729/-, Rs.1,09,63,788/- respectively totaling Rs. 5,15,46,247/-. This amount of outstanding payment itself appeared to be a clear indication that the transactions regarding sale of soaps are bogus. 1.6. Inquiry was made with Sh. Jagdish Arora, Proprietor of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6,28,36,288/-; and (c ) imposed penalty of Rs. 75,00,000/- on the Appellant under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 and another penalty of Rs.2,84,11,816/- under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 1.10 Against this order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed along with stay application. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay application. 3. Sh. Jatin Mahajan, learned counsel for the Appellant, pleaded that imported CPO-(NEG) had been used by Appellant for the intended purpose i.e. manufacture of soap, that in this regard, the Jurisdictional Assistant Central Excise has already issued End Use Certificates, certifying that imported oil has been used for manufacture of soap, that no proceedings have been initiated against the Assistant Commissioner for issue of false End Use Certificates, that though the Department relies upon the statements of Caustic Soda supplier and the transporter which are against the Appellant, but the Caustic Soda supplier and the transporter have not been made parties to these proceedings for imposition of penalty on them for fabrication of false documents, that the Appellant have strong prima facie case in their favour and that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that the End Use Certificates issued by the Assistant Commissioner cannot be treated as evidence of the use of the imported CPO-(NEG) for the intended purpose. 6. We also find that while without Caustic Soda, manufacture of soap from imported CPO-(NEG) was not possible and while the Appellant claim to have purchased Caustic Soda from M/s. Punjab Sales Corporation, Amritsar, Sh. Nalin Kumar Proprietor of M/s. Punjab Sales Corporation, in his statement dt.28.07.05 has denied to have sold any Caustic Soda to the Appellant and has also stated that the cheque payments received for so-called supply of Caustic Soda from the Appellant were returned to the Appellant. 7. We also find that the soap claimed to have been manufactured by the Appellant is claimed to have been transported through M/s. Garcha Transport. But on inquiry with Sh. Avatar Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Garcha Transport, he stated that no goods of the Appellant have ever been transported by him, that his company is engaged in supply of construction material like sand and one truck owned by him is used only for supply of sand etc, and that the GRs showing transportation of the goods of the Appellant by the Truck of hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
