Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 7 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - Undervaluation of goods - evasion of duty - it is alleged that the goods sold through Surya Rubbers & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (SRCL) and Pyramid Rubber Company Pvt. Ltd. (PRCL) are not accounted in the books of RRPL - Non-existing/dummy units - HELD THAT:- There are strong force in the statements made by the appellants that when adjudicating authority has held that RRPL, SRC and PRC are related persons, it contradicts the finding in the impugned order that SRC and PRC are only dummy units created for procuring the tenders offered by KSRTC. In addition to that during hearing, the Learned counsel for the appellant draws our attention to large number of documents including registration, deed of partnership, VAT registration and proforma of registration issued by Central Excise authorities to SRC & RRPL firms, books of accounts etc., to substantiate that the units are functioning independently and not dummy units as alleged. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Versus Superior Products and Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it is categorically held that all the three units even few of the directors or responsible persons are one and same, they cannot be considered as related persons since all the three were having separate legal entities. Undervaluation - HELD THAT:- The document relied on by the adjudicating authority to adopt the value of the rubber cannot be considered as admissible evidence. Moreover, appellant had produced documents issued by Rubber Board regarding the average value of rubber at the relevant time. If the Investigating authority had reason to believe that the cost of rubber at the relevant time was higher than the value shown in the books of accounts, they could have obtained authentic data from the Rubber Board or other agency than relying on unsigned/unauthenticated document allegedly recovered during investigation. Moreover, there is no evidence regarding place of recovery of said document, it is unsigned and it was not brought to the notice of concerned person during investigation - Considering the above fact, there is no reason to allege undervaluation regarding transactions carried out between the RRPL, SRC and PRC. Regarding the submission made by the learned AR relating to the payments made by PRC and SRC allegedly to the rawmaterial suppliers, to a specific question regarding the books of account related to manufacturing activities for the goods supplied by the SRC and PRC, the learned AR fairly admits that there are no such records available on record. Appeal allowed.
|