Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (6) TMI 729

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ings. He did even produce any evidence to substantiate his claim before the appellate authority. Not only this the appellant did not even produce his account books as also the supply contract with M/s. Sierra Industrial Enterprises (P) Ltd. and M/s. Reebok India Ltd. which could has thrown light on the issue and instead took a plea that his account books have been lost regarding which a FIR was lodged with the police. From this it is evident, that FIR was lodged on an afterthought to justify, non-production of account books which would have brought true facts to light. Thus much importance cannot be attached to the FIR. From the above it is evident that the appellant has failed to adduce evidence, within his knowledge and control, to sup .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... information that the appellant was manufactured and clearing bags and caps under the brand name Reebok and Nike to M/s. Sierra Industrial Enterprises (P) Ltd. The appellant was neither registered with the Central Excise Department nor he was paying excise duty on the said goods. Statement of Sandeep Khanna, Partner of the appellant firm was recorded by the excise officers on 12th September, 1997, wherein he is stated that the appellant firm was trading in the caps and bags and the firm supplied caps and bags to M/s. Sierra Industrial Enterprises (P) Ltd. after obtaining price from various vendors/manufacturers. On further inquiries it was found that the appellant during the period 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 had supplied those branded goods wor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Appeals) pursuant to the remand order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant rejected the appeal on merits, however, findings some calculation errors in the Order-in-Original he modified the demand of duty to Rs. 6,07,550/-. It is against said order, the appellant has come in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Learned Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate assailing the impugned order has pleaded that the Adjudicating Authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) have failed to appreciate that the appellant is not the manufacturer of caps and bags in question. He was only a trader as such not liable to pay excise duty. It is submitted that there is no evidence to show that appellant is manufacturer as such impugned order is not sustai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Act. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. The main issue which requires consideration of the Tribunal in this appeal is whether or not the appellant has manufactured and cleared the disputed caps and bags under the brand name Reebok and Nike to M/s. Sierra Industrial Enterprises (P) Ltd. and M/s. Reebok India Ltd. 10. Undisputedly the appellant during the period in question sold caps and bags to M/s. Sierra Industrial Enterprises (P) Ltd. and M/s. Reebok India Ltd. That being the case the appellant alone is the person who could throw light on the controversy as to whether he was manufacturer of caps and bags or was only a trader. If the appellant was a trader he could easily have produced in evidence t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ady concluded that the appellant was manufacturer of the caps and bags which were cleared by him to M/s. Sierra Industrial Enterprises (P) Ltd. and M/s. Reebok India Ltd. without payment of excise duty. Admittedly the appellant did not get himself registered with the excise department as a manufacturer, therefore, the department could not have any way to know about the removal of excisable goods by the appellant without the payment of excise duty. Thus, in our view this is a clear case of deliberate concealment and suppression of fact on the part of the appellant as such the department was well within its rights to invoke extended period of limitation. We have gone through the judgments relied upon by the appellant, in our respectful view a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates