9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar Singh, (Supdt), A.R. for the Department ORDER These appeals have been preferred by the assessee-appellant against common Order-in-Appeal dated 02.02.2015. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant is a manufacturer of pesticides and chemicals falling under Chapter 29 38 of the First Schedule to CETH. The appellants are having two manufacturing units, separated by road, called as unit I and unit II in Industrial Area, Chinhat, Lucknow. Initially unit I was set up and subsequently after a gap of few years unit II was setup. Earlier appellant had separate registration number for both units, but as unit Il was only carrying out job work for unit I and never made any clearances, as unit II was supporting unit I as a job worker, appellant applied for common registration number on 09/11/2011. The Commissioner vide order dated 06/12/2012 granted common registration number for both the units. Prior to 09/11/2011 when the two units were having separate registration number, appellant was transferring inputs from unit I to unit II, on job work challans, for which records were being maintained. Unit I had also filed necessary declaration under Notification No. 214/2000. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 20,22,936 on the quantity of finished goods found short with proposal for penalty. Another show cause notice dated 13/12/2011 was issued on unit Il proposing to confiscate the seized finished goods valued at ₹ 1,88,48,910/- (in excess) involving duty of ₹ 19,41,438/- recovered from unit II. Prior to issue of SCN, the statement of Ajit Nath, Authorized Person of the appellant for excise matter was recorded on 17/06/2011, who had stated that the goods found short in unit I had been kept in unit II, located opposite to each other due to paucity of space in unit I. He further stated that in respect of quantity found short, no invoice or job work challan or any other document for removal of goods had been issued. It also appeared to Revenue that appellant not obtained any permission from the Department for the storage of non-duty paid goods outside the registered factory premises. Mr. V.K. Verma, Production Manager of the appellant informed that Mr. S.S. Tripathi, Factory Manager was authorized for excise matters, was on leave. He stated that unit Il carries out job work for unit I. Unit Il does not sell any goods from its factory and therefore did not maintain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers and thus it cannot be said that goods had clandestinely been removed from unit I. Under the facts and circumstances of shortage found in unit I and almost identical excess found in unit II, it is a clear case of clerical error on the part the concerned employee, being transfer challans issued without physically transferring the goods. Thus, being a case of improper maintenance of records. Number of goods which were transferred from unit I to unit II for manufacture on job work, but due to paucity of space in unit I, some of the material was even shown as return to unit I, but had not been physically transferred. Appellant have duly paid duty on clearance of the seized goods pursuant to provisional release. The two units are owned by the same appellant company and are interdependent units. This fact is evident from the order of Commissioner dated 06/12/2012, granting common registration number. Further, it is admitted fact that the goods were found lying inside the factory-unit II and no attempt was being made for their removal. Certain goods were transferred from unit 1 to unit II for repacking in small packs but the job work challan had not been issued. No products were manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounted or being transported without proper documents of clearance. At the time of inspection some goods of unit I duly accounted for in the RG-I Register were found stocked in the premises of unit II. The explanation given by the appellant that this happened due to shortage of space and the monsoon season, have not been found to be untrue. Further, admittedly the goods seized and subsequently released provisionally have been cleared on payment of duty. Admittedly, no RG-I Register is maintained in unit II. Mr. Sudhanshu Sehker Tripathi, Factory Manager and other authorized officer, in their statement dated 26/08/2011, in response to the question whether the unaccounted finished goods found in unit Il were manufactured by them and if yes in which record they have been entered. In answer, it was stated yes, all the goods found unaccounted are manufactured by them. The production is entered in job work register. But in the job work register their balance was not reflected as finished goods were not physically transferred back to unit I, but the transfer was documented. In response to the next question as to why it happened so, it was stated that due to excessive rains and due to short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents submitted by the party, it was observed that both the units are having single PAN No. AAACI3591D and single Sales Tax registration in. the name of India Pesticides Ltd. On the basis of this PAN No. Central Excise Registration Nos. were issued to the two units of M/s. India Pesticides Ltd., Lucknow. Income Tax Return was also filed by the party at their Head office of Bareilly for the financial year 2011-12 on the basis of this PAN No. In this regard, as per the provisions of sub para 3.2 of Chapter 2 of CBEC's Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions, 2005 1 am inclined to decide the case taking into consideration report of Divisional A.C., submission made by the party dated 14.11.2012 and verification report of the Supdt. (Tech) and other relevant records on file. I find that the Unit-I Unit-II of M/s India Pesticides Ltd., Lucknow are having common labour, common income Tax assessment orders, single Sales Tax registration. I also find that manufacturing process of both the units are interdependent and interlinked. ORDER In view of above findings, I hereby order that single registration under Central Excise rules is admissible to Unit-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
