9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Agarwal, Member (T) [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. - 1. The respondents are engaged in manufacture of M.S. Pipes falling under CET sub-heading 7306.90. On 22-8-95 the preventive officers of Central Excise Division visited their factory premises and in the course of preventive checks and physical verification of finished goods, a quantity of 14.435 MT of M.S. Pipes were found in excess of re corded balance in RG-1 Register and the same were seized. Certain records were resumed for scrutiny and it was found that the respondents were filing classification lists from time to time mentioning therein the description of goods as MSC/M.S. Pipes with market/buyer brand names and MSC/M.S. Pipes and tubes with ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they had also manufactured market brand pipes which were easily saleable in the market and those brands were not brand of anybody such as 'JTL' as shown. They did not avail benefit of SSI exemption on such pipes. 3. Thus, it appeared that the assessees had willfully shown some of their pipes as 'market/buyer brand pipes', without mentioning the name of specific brand in the records. The value of clearance of both categories of pipes manufactured and cleared by the assessee during the period 1993-94 exceeded the exemption limit of Rs. 3 crores in the financial year 1994-95, hence the assessees were not eligible to avail benefit of exemption in terms of SSI notification for the financial year 1995-96. It was found that Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled RT12 return to Range Superintendent, and were maintaining proper records like RG1 Register, issuing proper invoices and were paying full rate of duty on the clearances of branded goods. The Range Superintendent, vide his letter dated 14-11-94 raised objections while assessing the RT12 returns, wherein very first objection was relating to Specification/Size/Brand name etc. while issuing the invoices. This was replied by the appellant vide their letter dated 30-11-94. Thus from above facts it is very clear that the fact was very well in the knowledge of the department that the appellant were manufacturing goods with others brand name/trade name. In these circumstances, invocation of extended period under Section 1 1A is not sustainable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he records as no one appeared for respondent in spite of notice. We find that the respondents had made a positive averment in the classification declaration that they were manufacturing MS pipes both of their own brand as well as bearing brand name of other persons which was deliberately false, for the reason that they were manufacturing only their own brand and the misdeclaration was resorted to for the purpose of fraudulent and wrongfully availing benefit of exemption under SSI notification No. l/93-C.E. They also sought to mislead the department by reply dated 30-11-94 that it was the market practice not to mention the brand name. Since there has been a positive averment in the classification declaration which was a false one, the extend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
