Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1295 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine manufacture and removal - unaccounted purchase and clandestine packing/re-packing/labelling of excisable goods - retraction of statements - extended period of limitation - Jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- An apparent admission about packing, labelling and re-packing of the two wheeler automobile parts which amount to manufacture for the other brands. There is apparent admission that the brand names of the Companies like Hero Honda, TVS, Yamaha, etc. were without any permission/ agreement and the same was known to the appellant to be an illegal activity. This admission of the proprietor of appellant stands duly corroborated from the statement of the appellant’s accountant cum computer operator. Hence, the subsequent contention of the appellant about not manufacturing the goods of other brand is not acceptable. The seizure of such goods at the time of searches is, over and above, corroboration to the aforesaid admission. Retraction of statements - HELD THAT:- The question as to whether the admissions can be confirmed on the strength of confessional statements stands settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of KI. PAVUNNY VERSUS ASSTT. COLLR. (HQ.) , C. EX. COLLECTORATE, COCHIN [1997 (2) TMI 97 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that confessional statement of accuse if found to be voluntarily can form the sole basis of conviction. Only if it is retracted, the Court is required to examine whether it was obtained by threat, duress or promise and whether the confession is trivial. In the present case, we find that there is no retraction of the aforementioned admission/confession on the part of the proprietor of the appellant Shri Sanjay Jain - Thus, the same has rightly been considered by the adjudicating authority as the basis of confirming the demand for manufacture of goods of other brands and also for denying the entitlement to SSI exemption Notification to the appellant. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The fact of non registration coupled with the non retracted statement of the proprietor of the appellant and also coupled with the seizure of goods of other brands from the premises of the appellant is sufficient to hold that the appellant had intentionally not got the registration with the sole objective to evade the payment of excise duty. In the given circumstances, the Department was justified while invoking the extended period of limitation. Jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- The impugned show cause notice specifically recites that the search warrants for the premises of Dwarka were issued by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi–II. In fact, the officers from both the Commissionerate conducted the search at Dwarka. We also observe that a separate show cause notice was issued to Dwarka unit of the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi–II which was adjudicated by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division–V vide Order dated 06.11.2012. Hence, the Commissionerate having appropriate jurisdiction over Dwarka had already taken an appropriate action against the Dwarka factory of the noticee - the impugned show cause notice has no fault lying as far as the jurisdiction is concerned. Appeal dismissed.
|