TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation by falsely declaring the name by changing the initials. Both the units have obtained central excise registration certificates much prior to the SSI exemption extended to cotton yarn vide Notification No. 90/94 dt. 25.4.94. We find from the documents submitted by the respondents in their cross objections, the respondents had adduced two letters vide No. 311/VT/94 and No. 312/VT/94 both dt. 12.5.94 to the Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore requesting for allowing SSI exemption upto to the limit of ₹ 30 lakhs as per Notification No. 1/93 dt. 1.3.93 as amended by Notification No. 90/94 dt. 25.4.94. - once the return is scrutinized and accepted by the jurisdictional Superintendent, the adjudicating authority has rightly held that there is no suppression of facts. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the respondents are eligible for SSI exemption of ₹ 30 lakhs for both the units in the year 1994-95. We find that there is no merit in the revenue contention and the adjudicating authority has rightly dropped the proceedings both on merits and on limitation. There is not even a single evidence either statutory document or private documents or even paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dt. 14.7.99 was issued to both units on two issues, (i) clubbing of value of clearances of both the units and denying SSI exemption and demanded duty of ₹ 3 lakhs (BED) and ₹ 45,000/- AED (T). (ii) Demand of excise duty of ₹ 19,22,816/- (BED) and ₹ 2,88,422/- AED (T) on the cotton yarn in Cheese form cleared in the guise of Plain Reel Hank (PRH). The adjudicating authority vide impugned order dropped all the proceedings initiated against M/s. Vyas Textiles and M/s. Vyas Textile Unit B both on merits as well as on time-bar. 3. The Ld. A.R. for Revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal. He submits that in a case of clandestine removal, the department is not required to prove the allegations hundred percent. Circumstantial evidence and voluntary statements recorded is sufficient to prove the department's case. 4. Regarding denial of SSI exemption, he submits that the respondent-a proprietor concern had registered two units in the same premises with the intent to evade payment of duty. Even though registration was issued before the SSI exemption was extended to the cotton yarn, the respondents had deliberately taken the two registrations by giving di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cross objection filed by the respondent. 7. The Ld. Advocate Shri M.S. Nagaraja on behalf of the respondent has filed synopsis dt. 30.7.2013 wherein it is submitted that the main unit of M/s. Vyas Textiles was engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn since 1984 onwards. M/s. Vyas Textiles obtained Central Excise Registration on 30.6.92 and they started the second unit viz.. M/s. Vyas Textiles B unit. It was also submitted that they obtained the central excise registrations much before the amendment of Notification No. 1/93-CE dt. 28.2.1993 extending the SSI exemption for cotton yarn vide Notfn. 90/94 dt. 25.4.94. After the SSI exemption extended to cotton yarn on 25.4.1994, they requested the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore for extending the benefit of SSI exemption for the period 1994-95. They have also filed periodical RT-13 returns before the jurisdictional authorities which was duly scrutinized and assessment was completed by the Range Superintendent. There was no suppression of facts nor any intention to evade payment of excise duty for taking two registrations. Therefore, they are entitled for the SSI exemption for both the units. 8. On the issue of mis-de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Ltd. Vs CCE Kanpur 2005 (184) ELT 165 (T) - CCE C, Mumbai Vs Bell Granito Ceramica Ltd. 2006 (198) ELT 161 (SC) - Continental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs CCE Chandigarh 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC) - CCE Vs MSS Food Products Ltd 2007 (264) ELT 165 (MP) - Ganga Parameshwari Spinners Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (239) ELT 196 (T.-Che.) - CCE Vs Omkar Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (259) ELT 687 (Guj.) - CCE Vs Brims Products 2011 (271) ELT 184 (Pat.) - CCE Vs Renny Steel Castings (P) Ltd. 2013 (288) ELT 45 (P H) 9. We have carefully examined the submissions made by both sides. Revenue filed appeal against the impugned order on the grounds that there is suppression of facts with a clear intention to evade payment of duty and demand raised is sustainable and the adjudicating authority has not appreciated the facts and has not applied the preponderance of probability. The department also alleged that the appellants have obtained two registrations owned by the same proprietor and functioning in the same premises which is a clear intention to evade duty. Therefore, the demand was sustainable for denial of SSI exemption for both the units for the year 1994-95. On the second issue, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anging the initials of G.M. Vyas and M.G. Vyas appears to be factually incorrect. The Revenue contention that respondent has deliberately given a wrong initials as G.M. Vyas and M.G. Vyas while applying for Registration in the Department. We find that Unit I was registered in the name of G.M. Vyas whereas the second unit was held by M.G. Vyas who is s/o of G.M. Vyas. As evident from the registration certificates, the department has not adduced any evidence to prove that M.G. Vyas is not the son of G.M. Vyas and both relates to same individual. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the Revenue's allegation that proprietor has obtained registration by falsely declaring the name by changing the initials. 12. On the suppression of facts alleged by Revenue, we find that both the units have obtained central excise registration certificates much prior to the SSI exemption extended to cotton yarn vide Notification No. 90/94 dt. 25.4.94. We find from the documents submitted by the respondents in their cross objections, the respondents had adduced two letters vide No. 311/VT/94 and No. 312/VT/94 both dt. 12.5.94 to the Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore requesting for allowing S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I would like to take the statements of the workers who has stated that they have never seen the half bale' being packed in their factory. To this the assessee has placed a counter argument that other than the set of workers referred to in the statement other set of workers were engaged and half bales were in fact been packed. I do see some merit in their argument. It is not the case that the unit has never manufactured hanks. The notice itself has accepted that the unit had facility to manufacture hanks. Further, it has been accepted that the clearance of hanks in other forms that is other than HB bales were made. In the circumstances the argument of the assessee that half bales were infect been packed assumes greater credibility, as the hanks manufactured in the factory could have been packed into half bales, while they were packed in to full bales/chippam. So the evidence of the worker loses its relevance once the manufacture of hanks has been established. 28.2. Next comes the statements of customers. In all the statements the customers have stated that they require cheese yam for their use, that they have received the goods under invoices describing them as HB' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the statement of the transporters relied on by the department has no relevance who has stopped business with the respondents for more than 2 years during the relevant period. Even no documents were recovered from the transporter to support his averments made in the statements. As seen from the list of customers appended to the cross-objection, the respondents have cleared the goods to more than hundred customers over the period of five years. If that being the position, relying on only seven customers' statements that too without any corroborative evidence would not be a valid proof. The very fact that respondent have cleared the goods to M/s. National Handloom Development Corporation which is a Public Sector Undertaking supports the fact that they have not cleared cheese yarn in the guise of PRH. The respondents have submitted returns to the Textile Commissioner giving full details of Hank yarn manufactured in fulfillment of obligation by the government shows that there was no intention on the part of respondents to suppress the facts. This fact has not been countered by the department by any documentary evidence. The adjudicating authority has brought out these facts in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
