Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 444 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine manufacture and removal - suppression of facts - Revenue has alleged that during the disputed period SI failed to account the entire raw materials purchased and used such unaccounted raw materials in the manufacture of CTVs which were clandestinely removed to trading unit M/s AEPL without payment of Excise Duty - Held that: - All the three firms viz M/s SI, M/s BE and M/s AEPL belonged to the same family and are controlled and run by Shri Vinod Kumar Garg as well as Shri K. M. Garg. Both of them are partners in M/s BE as well as M/s SI and are also directors in M/s AEPL. It is not difficult to see that all the three firms are managed and run as one single enterprise - Raw materials such as CPTs, sub assemblies etc have been shown as procured by M/s AEPL and also M/s BE through four fictitious firms who had their own bank accounts but did not have any physical presence. All the addresses were found fictitious. This clearly evidences the fact that the raw materials have been procured clandestinely by M/s AEPL. It stands admitted by Shri K.M. Garg, Director, M/s AEPL that these fictitious firms did not have any manufacturing facility and that the raw materials procured by M/s AEPL were only to make CTVs and further that the goods made by M/s BE and M/s SI were sold through M/s AEPL. M/s AEPL had got CTVs manufacture by M/s SI and M/s BE and sold to various dealers. The raw materials were procured through fictitious firms and utilized the same in the manufacture by M/s SI as well as M/s BE. The documentary evidences further reveal that such raw materials as well as CTVs were not properly accounted. The claim made by the appellant that M/s BE was only manufacturing black and white TVs but were repairing colour television is not borne out by the documents recovered during search. The documentary as well as oral evidences of the case support the allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance by M/s SI and M/s BE - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|