9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting at different premises and therefore, the benefit of SSI exemption under N/N. 8/2002 can be claimed by each of them separately - the original authority has been considerate generous to the appellants by extending cum-duty benefit and the lower appellate authority has further reduced the penalties on the director/partner considerably - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/381 to 383/2005 - 40727-40729/2017 - Dated:- 17-5-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri A. Mudimannan, Advocate for the Appellants Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Madhu Mohan Damodhar Facts of the case are that a private limited firm wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on Shri A. Shanmugam, Managing Director of M/s. Executive Forms and Smt. S. Shanthi, wife of Shri A. Shanmugam, partner of M/s. Honeywell Forms. The original adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 13.10.2004 confirmed the proposals in the notice, however, extended cum-duty benefit to the appellants thereby reducing the differential duty demand to ₹ 2,06,599/- along with interest thereon and imposed equal amount of penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Computer stationeries seized at the premises of the appellant were also confiscated, however, they were allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of ₹ 17,500/-. Penalties of ₹ 2,00,000/- each were imposed unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Executive Forms and Honeywell Forms were operating from one and the same premises utilizing the very same machinery and there was only one single electricity connection in the said premises. 3.2 As regards the claim of the appellant that the Director and partner having retracted the statements, he submits that no proof has been adduced by the appellants that the said statement had in fact been received by the department. 3.3 He takes us to the statement of Shri A. Shanmugam, director and Smt. S. Shanthi, partner to point out that both these persons along with the statements submitted identical plan of the premises in which Executive Form was functioning and subsequent it was taken over on lease by Honeywell Forms. 3.4 On the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A. Shanmugam, featured in paras to 17 to 20 of the show cause notice, it has been clearly admitted that they were under the impression that by assigning a new door number to the same premises, further exemption to the value of clearances of computer stationery upto Rs. One crore would be available to Honeywell Forms for the period 2002 - 03. It has also been admitted that the premises has only one electricity connection and that they were using the very same machinery. 4.4 Learned counsel has contended that the statements have been retracted. However, no other evidence has been put forth by the appellants or by the counsel to convince us that M/s. Honeywell Forms did not engage or operate from any premises other than that was occupied by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing at different premises and therefore, the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification 8/2002 can be claimed by each of them separately. 4.9 Learned counsel has made a number of contentions with regard to few technical inadequacies and shortcomings in the investigation. For investigations of this sort, it is not expected that the perpetrators would leave an unbroken chain of evidence behind them. When there is such modus operandi followed to evade payment of duty, obviously, there would also be all efforts made to erase any traces of the fraudulent acts and omission. Nonetheless, in this case, department has been able to more than adequately establish the modus operandi and the intent of the appellants to evade duty liability r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
