9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and further imposed personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- each on them under Rule 173-Q of the Rules while appeals No. E/1750/2000-B, E/1894/2000-B and E/1893/2000-B had been filed by the appellants against the impugned orders in appeal dated 17-2-2000/21-2-2000, 22-2-2000/28-2-2000 vide which Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the order-in- original dated 31-8-1998/24-9-1998 of the Deputy Commissioner who ordered the confiscation of the seized goods under Rule 173-Q of the Rules with option to get the same redeemed on payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on each of them. Since all these six appeals arise out of the common facts and as such are being disposed of by one common order. 2.The facts giving rise to all the above captioned appeals may briefly be stated as under : 3.All the above named appellants were engaged in the manufacture of oil expellers and parts and other machinery parts falling under sub-heading 8479.19, 8421.10, 8428.10, 8483.90, 8470.90 and 8302.00 of the Schedule to the CETA, without any Central Excise registration. They had been referred as party No. (1) to (3) respectively in both the impugned orders as well as in the orders-in-orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it during the period February - March, 1997 to March, 1998. They were accordingly served with three show cause notices dated 2-9-1997, 12-12-1997 and 14-5-1998 to show cause as to why their clearances should not be clubbed and the differential duty evaded by them for the periods February - March, 1997, (Rs. 2,26,058/-) 4/97 to 9/97 (Rs. 1,18,876), 10/97 to March, 1998 (Rs. 2,00,125/-) be not recovered and penal action also be not taken against them. 5.The appellants contested all the above referred show cause notices, i.e. one issued in a seizure case, dated 11-6-1997 and the other three issued in clubbing case, dated 2-9-1997, 12-12-1997 and 14-5-1998. They in their reply took the defence that their all the three units were separately located had sufficient machinery to produce the goods, the partners in all the units were different and the units were separately registered with registrar of Firms and that there was no flow back of money from one unit to another and there was also no common control of the business and the profits of the units by any single person. They also averred that the seizure of the goods was illegal and there was no justification for denying them independen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent SSI registration and also registered with the Registrar of Firms and had separate Sales Tax numbers. Therefore, the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) in all the appeals deserve to be best aside. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on - (1) Process Plant (India) Ltd. & Ors v. CCE, Bombay [2000 (124) E.L.T. 391 (Tribunal) = 1999 (32) RLT 651 (CEGAT) (2) Rupani Textile Industries v. CCE, Mumbai, 1999 (113) E.L.T. 946 (3) CCE, Ahmedabad v. Ambica Scale Mfg. Works, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 229 (4) Gajanan Fabrics Distributors v. CCE, Pune, 1997 (92) E.L.T. 451 (S.C.) and (5) M/s. Shriram Central Processing System & Ors. v. CCE, Indore, decided vide Final Order Nos. A/79-84/2000-NB (DB), dated 1-2-2000 by the Tribunal. 10.On the other hand, the learned SDR has argued that there was overwhelming evidence to prove that all the three units (appellants) were virtually one, being located in the same premises had common manufacturing activities being carried by one family and had common office where record/documents of all the units were being maintained and stored. Therefore, the clubbing of their clearances and seizure of the goods had been rightly made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3 [appellant No. (3)] also accepted the correctness of his statement. On the basis of their statements and investigation carried out by the Preventive Staff at the spot, in our view, the clubbing of clearances of the goods made by all the units (appellants) during the period in question and the seizure of the goods lying in their premises had been rightly made by the authorities below. The alleged subsequent retraction of the statement by Sat Parkash Goyal had been rightly ignored being an afterthought. Moreover, there is no material on record to suggest if any pressure on coercion was exercised on him for making the statement. His statement, as observed above, that all the units were having common manufacturing activities/facilities was endorsed by his own sons Surender Pal and Anil Kumar whom he showed them partners in the units. 14.On the basis of separate registration as SSI units or by getting separate sales tax numbers and registration from the Registrar of Firms, the appellant's could not be termed as independent units, when the manufacturing activities were being carried out by them collectively as members of one family at one place with one office. 15.The flow back of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed, similarly, in the fourth case Gajanan Fabrics Distributors, the demand was confirmed on all the seven units and for that reason it was observed that the Collector treated them as assessees and recognised their independent existence. But in the case in hand, the seized goods were got released on furnishing a bank guarantee only by appellant No. (1) and not by other units. Only penalty had been imposed on all the appellants and that too under Rule 173-Q of the Rules for the simple reason that they all connived and evaded the payment of Central Excise duty. They had not been recognised directly or indirectly as independent units. Rather both the authorities below had recorded concurrent findings that these were one unit constituted by members of one family with a view to evade the appropriate payment of Excise duty. Similarly, in the last case Shriram Central Processing decided by the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. A/79-84/2000-NB (DB) the ratio of the law laid down in Gajanan Fabrics Distributors was followed but that ratio in the instant case, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the discussion made, cannot be made applicable. 17. In the view of the discussion made abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
