TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (T) Shri Ajay Saxena, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri S.P. Mathew, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per: K.K. Agarwal, Member (T)]. - This is Revenue's appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent M/s. Alex Industries are engaged in manufacturing of imitation jewellery. On the basis of intelligence, investigations were carried out which revealed that three units viz. M/s. Alex Industries, M/s. Alex Jewellery and M/s. Jaya Jewellery were operating from the same premises having common plant and machinery, common staff, common procurement of raw material and common sale of finished goods. Though the machines were purchased in the name of three units showing different address, they were in fact installed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to why clearances of three units should not be clubbed as per condition No. (vi) of SSI Exemption Notification No. 8/2001-CE and duty should not be demanded in respect of clearances exceeding Rs. 1 Crore. 3. The show cause notice was adjudicated by Joint Commissioner who ordered clubbing of turn over of all the three units and confirmed duty demand of Rs. 1,60,273/- along with interest and ordered confiscation of goods seized and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Rule 209A on Shri Mudliar. Joint Commissioner however allowed deduction of Rs. 25,00,000/- alleged to be transactions in cash in the month of April 2001 on the ground that besides two statements of Shri Joshi and Shri Mudliar, there was no other corroborative evidence. Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that they were operating from the same premises and none of them have been declared to be dummy nor one of them has been declared to be the real unit. He referred to the decision of Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Sompura Ceramics - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 195 (Tri.-Del.), wherein similar case of clubbing of clearances, Revenue's appeal against only one firm without implicating other firms was held to be non-maintainable when clearances of all units was proposed to be clubbed. Similarly in the case of CCE v. Supreme Electrical Appliances - 2001 (131) E.L.T. 271 (Tri.-Del.), it was held that appeal by Department is not maintainable against one assessee without hearing other units whose clearances were proposed to be clubbed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Industries and therefore an appeal could have been filed only against Alex Industries and not others. 8. As regards addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- it was submitted that this fact has been admitted by Shri Mudliar in his three statements and by Shri Joshi. These facts narrated by Shri Mudliar were also accepted by other Director Mrs. Jaya Mudliar and these statements were never retracted except in the form of denial of any liability in reply to the show cause notice, which was submitted after 9 months of the recording of statement. Once there is an admission by three persons and, other circumstantial evidence that cash transactions were there in respect of each month. Commissioner (Appeals) could not have ignored this amount and duty shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision in the case of Naresh J. Sukhawani v. Union of India - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 258 (S.C.). Further confessional statement before Customs Officers is admissible and binding as has been repeatedly held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.) and K.I. Pavunny v. CCE - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.). Besides it is not sufficient to allege that the statements were obtained under duress, coercion etc. but evidence regarding such duress etc. is also required to be produced which has not been done. The respondents plea that the transfer of Rs. 25,00,000/- was towards all the three units is of no consequence as once Alex Industries has admitted duty liability on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|