9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Metal and Metal (Elect.) Pvt. Ltd. is reduced which shall be twice the duty element looking to the magnitude of evasion and questionable modus operandi followed – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. - Appeal No. E/311-322 & 324-331/2005-EX - FINAL ORDER NO. 57283-57302/2013 - Dated:- 8-8-2013 - Mr. D.N. Panda and Mr. Manmohan singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri B.B. Sharma, DR JUDGEMENT PER D.N.PANDA : All the appeals in this batch arose out of common adjudication order dated 29.10.2004 against 2 show cause notices dated 13.8.2002 and 2.5.2003. Both the proceeding being related to common cause, all these 20 appeals having emanated from such cause, those were heard analogous and disposed by this common order for proper appreciation of facts and evidence. 1.2 When Revenue came to know that some manufacturers of wires and cables falling under Chapter heading no.8544.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were resorting to large scale evasion of Central Excise duty manufactured in different units owned by them or by their job workers, claiming SSI exemptions in respect of such unit to wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the presence of Sri Sudhir Nagpal who was director thereof. Inventory of goods resulted in existence of excess stock of 225 metres of finished wire of 4 core 10mm sq. That also resulted with recovery of incriminating records and documents. 1.8 Search to premises of Paragon Cable Industries (P) Ltd. was conducted in the presence of Sri Vipul Nagpal, a director thereof. That resulted in recovery of records, documents and paper of incriminating in nature. 1.9 Search to Paragon Cable Corporation conducted in the presence of Sri Sunil Nagpal, a director thereof resulted in recovery of incriminating documents and records for further scrutiny. 1.10 Search to the premises of Paragon Cable India was conducted in the presence of Sri Vikas Nagpal and sample of goods was drawn and incriminating documents and records were recovered during search. 1.11 During investigation, when name of Roxy Electrical Cable came to notice of the investigation on 21.2.2002 from Gulshan Kumar Grover who was running away from factory of Paragon Cable Co., search to the premises of the dealer viz., M/s Roxy Electrical in Delhi in the presence of D.L. Nagpal, partner of Roxy Electrical was conducted. Brand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in sl. No 1 to 5 of Table-1 below followed by levy of equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rules made thereunder as well as interest against show cause notice dated 13.08.2002 TABLE-1 Sl. Appeal No. Appellant Duty demand on seizure Penalty Duty demands on past clearances Penalty equal amount of duty (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1. E-311/2005 Paragon Cable Co. 44,612 44,612 2,03,003 2,03,003 2. E-314/2005 Paracon Cable Co. 21,811 21,811 2,28,902 2,28,902 3. E-316/2005 Paragon Enterprises India 13,269 13,269 5,43,751 5,43,751 4. E-318/2005 Paragon power cable Ltd. 29,670 29,670 3,89,738 3,89,738 5. E-324/2005 Rolex Cable Co. 11,101 11,101 14,14,299 14,14,299 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not owned by them and were taking undue benefit of Notification No. 16/97-CE dated 01.04.97 as well as Notification No. 8/98-CE dated 2.6.98 as amended from time to time without payment of duty while not eligible to such benefit. Accordingly M/s Janta Cable Co. and M/s Rolex Cable Co. were liable to pay Central Excise Duty on the Paragon branded goods manufactured and cleared by them as per Annexure 47 of SCN. Their concerned proprietors were also liable to penal action under the Central Excise law. 2.7 Ultimately difference in quantity consigned and value misdeclared resulting out of comparison of invoices and transport documents and description of goods consigned gave rise to duty demand to the extent indicated against each in column (4) (6) of the Table-1. That also invited equal amount of penalty as exhibited in column (5) (7) of the said Table. 2.8 Rolex Cable Co. at Sl. No.5 of Table-1 above and Janta Cable Co. Sl. No.7 of Table-1 above having used brand name PARAGON not belonging to them and availed SSI Exemption benefit lost such exemption in adjudication for the period from April, 1998 to February, 2002. They had grievance that they were not manufacturing b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sudesh Kumar Prop. Of Rolex Cable Company 5,00,000 10 327/2005 Gulshan Kumar Proprietor of Janata Cable Company 5,00,000 4. Summarily the search and investigation result revealed as under:- (A) M/s Paragon Cable Co. Delhi M/s Paracon Cable Co. Delhi, M/s Paragon Enterprises (India), Delhi, M/s Paragon Cable Corporation, Delhi manufactured and removed excess quantity of Paragon branded wire and cables valued at Rs.12,17,227/-, Rs.14,15,991/-, Rs.33,53,606/- and Rs.84,12,813/- involving Central Excise Duty Rs.2,03,003/-, Rs.2,28,902/-, Rs.5,43,751/- and Rs.13,88,808/- respectively during the period from April 98 to Feb. 02 recording lesser quantity on invoices, than what was actually despatched. When compared with LRs issued by M/s Saurasthra Roadways and M/s Prakash Roadlines against which the goods were transported to their buyers located in Chennai. Sole intent was to evade payment of Central Excise Duty, leviable on those goods. (ii) M/s Paragon Power Cable Ltd., Delhi manufactured and cleared excess quantity of wire and cables of paragon brand collectively valued at Rs.24,35,860/- involvin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, 1944 and Rules 25 of Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001 read with Section 11 AC and Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (C) Shri Kantilal Jain, Managing Director, of M/s Metals Metal (Electric) (P) Ltd., Chennai and Shri S. Gouthamchand Jain, of M/s Metals Metal (Electric) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai as well as Proprietor of M/s Metals Metal, Chennai, and above company were concerned in depositing keeping, concealing and purchasing of excisable goods which they knew and had reasons to believe were liable fore confiscation under the Central Excise Act and Rules as no Central Excise Duty had been paid on the goods which were received by them in excess than what was recorded in the respective invoices and therefore, rendered themselves liable to penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001 read with Section 38A of Central Excise Act, 1944. (d) Sh. Somnath Nagpal, Smt. Prem Nagpal w/o Shri D.L. Nagpal, Partners in M/s Paragon Cable Co., Sh. Vikas Nagpal, Shri Sunil Nagpal, Shri Vipul Nagpal, Partners in M/s Paracon Cable Co., Sh. Somnath Nagpal, Shri D.L. Nagpal Shri Anil Kumar, Partners of M/s Paragon Enterpri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued and proper adjudication was made and duty was imposed on the basis of market value and no reduction in redemption fine and penalty shall be justified for the reason of deliberate evasion caused. Appellants connected to the seizure of goods in Chennai and Delhi have no right to pray for reduction in redemption fine or penalty nor they can ask cum duty benefit. So also no concession on penalty is permissible because of their plea they do not intend to litigate with the department. When they were caught red-handed, they have come out for leniency. Duty evasion was detected by investigation and deliberate mis-declaration of quantity as well as value was detected which remained undisputed. Accordingly no lenient view may be taken. 6.2 So far as seizure of goods in Delhi is concerned, Revenues submission was that there should not be any concession to Roxy Electricals when seizure of goods value of Rs. 3,62,500/- was made. No reduction in redemption fine should also be allowed to that concern. But appellants submission is that the appellant intends to reduce the litigation for which, redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh may be reduced if not waived otherwise because imposition of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rule out their role as consignors of misdeclared goods. Goods seized at various places and consignment of past clearances revealed that description of goods differed in quantity, quality, length and nature of goods and composition as well as characteristics thereof and such difference admitted. Value of goods consigned was also suppressed. Various evidence both oral and documentary revealed a planned evasion by appellants. Ld. Authority had no scope to agree with the descriptions in invoices for which he adopted market value in respect of the goods seized at different places and levied appropriate duty. Appellant had no defence against that. Suppliers of the goods having been found to be involved therein were also penalised. So also persons dealing with such goods were penalised for no proof of their innocence. 7.2 Rolex entered into agreement with Paragon Cable Company for manufacture of Paragon brand of cable 1.4.2001 for a consideration of Rs.20,000/-. Similarly M/s Janata Cable Company entered into agreement with Paragon Cable Company for manufacture of Paragon brand on 1.1.2002. There was no proof of manufacture of branded goods from a later date for no evidence adduced exce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
