9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t ORDER Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeals against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that an investigation was started at the end of the office of Commissioner of Central Excise, Merrut-II against various units located in their jurisdiction who were purchasing Menthol Solution and Dementholised Oil from Jammu Kashmir based units. The Meerut Commissionerate searched the premises of various commission agents and buyers as well as sellers of Manthol Solution DMO. The officers found that commission agents are neither maintaining proper record of sale of raw material nor purchased the raw material. The commission agents had issued Kissan Kharid Patra to various farmers whereas the investigation conducted at the end of farmers indicates that the farmers are non existence. On the basis of investigation at the end of commission agents and farmers, the Merrut Commissionerate concluded that J K based units are not purchasing raw material, so there is no question of manufacture of finished goods by J K based units the goods manufactured were sold to UP based manufacturers who in turn partial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted factory premises of the appellants and verified receipt of raw material. The officers of the department visited the factory premises of the appellants and physically verified stock and manufacturing activity. No adverse report was prepared. The appellants got transit insurance of raw material and the insurance company. The buyers of the appellants have exported the substantial goods. It is impossible to manufacture and export goods without purchase of raw material. The appellants have installed DG sets. The same was inspected by Chief Electrical Inspector who issued fitness certificate. Pollution Control Department also visited time to time and granted permission. All these evidences shows that, the appellant s unit was manufacturing, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants neither received the inputs and nor cleared the goods, therefore, the proceedings against the appellants are not sustainable. 4. On the other hand, the ld. AR reiterated the finding in the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. We find that in this case the sole allegation against the appellants is based on the investiga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, these units did not have any infrastructure to manufacture the said products, were non-functional and Transporters who did not tum up for tendering statements were declared non-existent etc. however, on close scrutiny of the records, the following facts emerges: (i) Most of the consignments of raw material were found entered at the Toll barrier. (ii) The Officers of District Industry Centre, who have assessed and fixed the capacity of manufacturing units, have been regularly verifying their purchase consignments. (iii) The Range staff had also been visiting these units for PBC Checks/verification of plant/machineries and reported nothing adverse against these units. 6. Therefore, it may not be strongly alleged with certainty that during the period 2005-2006 to 2008-2009, these 27 units have not purchased crude Mentha oil and therefore have not manufactured any Menthol products in their units at all. There is hardly any time left for further investigation to strengthen the case as process is very time consuming and most of these of units have closed their factories due to withdrawal of Central Excise Duty on all Mentha products w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly understood by the Adjudicating Authority. The present system of assessment in Central Excise is record based. The Officer assessing the duty is not required to be present when the goods are being manufactured to witness the process of manufacture. The adjudication is to be done on the basis of evidence produced before the Adjudicating Authority. As per Evidence Act evidence in totality is to be taken into consideration and therefore, finding recorded in the impugned Order by the Original Authority who passed the said Order dated 29/01/2010 is bad in law. The Original Authority did not understand the process either of assessments or of adjudication. Further the investigations were not undertaken to find out wherefrom the inputs were received by the appellant for the goods they manufactured and on which they paid duty and which were exported, if they had been received the inputs from M/s Ruchi Infotech System, Jammu or the other suppliers of inputs. Further, the additional evidence submitted by the appellant indicated that in respect of units in Jammu, Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises and seen that the manufacturing process going on was evidence by them and su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
