9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty on the clearance of aluminium sheets and aluminium fixtures during 2009-10 and ₹ 6,48,792/- on the goods clandestinely removed either without invoices or by misdescription in the invoices as aluminium circles for the year 2008-09 and 2009-10. The claim of Shri Bhadresh Sheventilal Shah of being innocent of the involvement in the mis-declaration to be acceptable. As purchaser of aluminium sheets , it would hardly be his place to verify the documents. He was not required to be compliant with central excise procedures, either as a manufacturer or as a registered dealer, and cannot be expected to have any interest other than satisfaction that goods that were supplied as per orders issued by him. In these circumstances, the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of duty liability under notification no. 8/2003-CE dated 1st March 2003, the value of the goods cleared under the compounded levy scheme were also to be included and, for having failed to do so, were held liable to duties, upon crossing the exemption limit of ₹ 4,00,00,000/-, for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The original authority confirmed duty liability of ₹ 20,03,896/- on the manufacturer and, while imposing penalties on the partner of the manufacturing entity, also held the proprietor of M/s Honesty Aluminium Centre, the buyer of the said goods, liable to penalty for having abetted evasion of central excise duty by the manufacturer. 3. Three of the appellants are not represented and it is seen that on v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd would not be within his knowledge. It is also his submission that, out of the numerous transactions with the supplier, only two or three invoices were found to have declared the goods as aluminium circles and that, for the other five, there were no invoices which could establish otherwise. He relies upon the decisions of the Tribunal in RK Fans Allied Products Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai III [2017 (358) ELT 1128 (Tri.-Mumbai)], Hi-Tech Electronics v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai V [2007 (218) ELT 604 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and Goodwill Electricals v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai V [2004 (177) ELT 785 (Tri.-Mumbai)]. 7. We find that the statement of Shri Hitesh B Jain, partner in M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
