TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the fact that M/s. RTI is an independent unit is not in dispute. Even if department says that the clearances made in the name of M/s. RTI are not the actual production of M/s. RTI, still, in order to observe the principles of Natural Justice, a Show Cause Notice ought to have been issued to M/s. RTI. - The appellants have strongly contended that they are entitled for exemption in respect of job work under Notification Nos. 83/1994 and 84/1994 both dated 11-4-1994. There is absolutely no discussion on this point. The records with reference to the job work given by M/s. RTI have not been examined at all. In view of all these things, we do not find any merit in the impugned orders. The same are set aside. As the demands are set aside, there is no justification for confiscation of the land, plant, machinery etc. Penalty is also not justified - E/681-683/2006 - 111-113/2009 - Dated:- 19-2-2009 - S/Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) and M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) Shri M.G. Varadarajan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Smt. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - All these appeals have been filed against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 295, 296 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame of Razia Timber Industries has not actually been manufactured by the said RTI. They are actually the clearances of the appellant. On this basis, Show Cause Notice has been issued only to one unit taking the clearances issued made in the name of the other unit as actually the manufacture of the appellant unit. With these assumptions, Show Cause Notice has been issued only to M/s. SP and not to the other two partnership firms. (ii) The learned Commissioner has failed to consider the position that Register 22 referred to in the Show Cause Notice is the RG-1 and obviously it would contain record of the appellant's production and goods obtained and cleared on job work basis. But this has not at all been properly analysed by the appellate authority and no finding given on this valid ground raised and the order is a non-speaking order. (iii) The appellant, throughout the proceedings, has been contending that the value adopted for the period from 27-4-2000 to 15-12-2000 is not at all correct, as the invoice value of the appellant has not been taken but some other imaginary figure is taken and, therefore, the demand has to be re-determined. But this point has not been discussed at a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve not been issued to the other units. The following case-laws are relied on : CCE v. Standard Watch Co. - 2000 (39) RLT 528; LMP Precision Engg. Co. - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 580 (T); Dawn Fire Works Factory - 1999 (31) RLT 104 (T); Indian Metal Industries - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 593 (Tri.) = 1999 (31) RLT 297 (T); East India Cotton Mfg. Co. - 2003 (160) E.L.T. 1165 (Tri.) = 2000 (36) RLT 274 (T); Ramsay Pharma Pvt. Ltd. - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 789 (T) = 2000 (40) RLT 713 (T); Ogesh Industries - 1999 (94) E.L.T. 88; SKN Gas Appliances - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 732 (Tri.) = 2000 (39) RLT 528 (T); Ramsay Pharma (P) Ltd. - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 789 (T) and CCE v. Western Cans (P) Ltd. - 2001 (43) RLT 287. (xi) Even if it is contended that the appellant had not followed the job work procedure properly, the substantial benefit of job work Notification could not have been denied on account of not following the proper procedure. (xii) The Show Cause Notice is clearly barred by limitation, as the investigation was completed as early as May, 2001 and the Show Cause Notice was issued on 20-5-2003 much after two years of completion of investigation which is, therefore, barred by limitation. Further, the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the appellant unit. Therefore, she maintained that there was no need for issue of Show Cause Notice to the other units. The allegation is mainly on the appellant M/s. SP. What has been cleared by the appellant includes the clearances in the name of M/s. RTI whereas the said goods were only manufactured by the appellant. So a case was made out that there was no need for issue of Show Cause Notices to all the three units. She referred to the various Registers, the files and other documents, which were recovered in the course of investigation and which have been mentioned and relied on in the Show Cause Notice. Especially, there is a register No. 22, which included the production of the appellant unit which also included the clearance. The main thrust is that M/s. Razia Timber Industries did not have any facility to manufacture Plywood in 1999-2000 and that no excisable goods were manufactured and cleared from the premises of M/s. Razia Timber Industries. But still, clearances have been shown in their name. Therefore, these are not the clearances of M/s. RTI. They are actually clearances made by the appellant unit in the guise of the clearances of M/s. RTI. This is the main thru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri M.K. Shoukat; (ii) Shri M.K. Hamza; (iii) Shri M.H. Rasheed, son of Shri M.K. Hamza. (iv) Smt. A.M. Jameela, wife of Shri M.K. Hamza, (v) Shri M.E. Aisha, son of Shri M.K Shoukat M/s. HP also has the following machines installed. (i) Hot Press (1 No.) (ii) Glue Mixer (1 No.) (iii) Glue Spreader (1 No.) (iv) D.D. Saw (1 No.) (v) Sanding Machine (1 No.) (vi) Boiler (1 No.) (vii) Generator (40 KV) (1 No.) 6.4 It is stated that HP commenced production and sale of plywood only from November 2000. But it had power connection from August 2000 and did job work for SP and RTI from August, 2000. Thus, it is clear that RTI, SP and HP were three different partnership firms even though they are having separate factory buildings, workers, financial accounts. Therefore, each of the above unit has a distinct identity. This is not disputed by the Revenue. In spite of this, we find the Revenue had not issued Show Cause Notice to the other units especially, when it is alleged that the clearance done by the appellant in the name of or under the invoices of M/s. RTI actually are the goods manufactured only by the appellant. Even though there is a submission that M/s. RTI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allegation that the appellant cleared goods in the guise of the invoices of other units in order to come within the SSI exemption limit. When the other two units are implicated, Show Cause Notices ought to have been issued. We do not agree with the Revenue's contention that there was no need for issue of Show Cause Notice to the other units especially when their existence is not in doubt. The case-laws relied on by the appellant in this respect are very relevant. 8. In any case, even on merits, the appellants have produced enormous evidence to show that M/s. RTI was giving core veneer and resins etc; to the appellant as well as to M/s. HP on job work basis. They had also indicated the amount of pressing charges paid to them. They have produced quite few records in evidence to prove that they had indeed given job work to the appellants. This point has not at all bean discussed. Moreover, based on one Mr. V.H. Harshad's statement, certain values had been included for arriving at the duty liability of the appellant. But that person has not been produced for cross examination. In that case, the clearances included by virtue of his statement ought to have been excluded. 9. On a ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
