9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed on them in terms of the impugned order. The duty has been demanded from the appellants for the reason that the goods manufactured in the appellant's factory have been shown to have been cleared in the name of another firm belonging to the same Group viz. M/s. Shankar Construction Company. The Learned Advocate for the appellants pleaded that the two companies namely M/s. Shankar Traders, the appellants herein and M/s. Shankar Construction Co. are two independent legal entities and were engaged in separate manufacturing activities. M/s. Shankar Traders, it was pleaded, were manufacturing Pre-stressed Cement Concrete (P.C.C) poles and M/s. Shankar Construction Co. were manufacturing R.C.C. Poles. He pleaded that Shankar Traders had entered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch he, however, clarified that so far as the town panchayat is concerned no door number as '68DI' has been given and this number has been given on their own for the reason that part of the premises was being taken on lease basis from Shankar Construction Co. by Shankar Traders. He has pleaded that inasmuch as Shankar Construction Co. on record had revealed their manufacturing activities to the Department, no mala fide can be attributed to them. He has cited the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmini Products v. Collector of C. Ex., reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (SC) and he has pleaded that in that case also the manufacturers were under a bona fide impression that they were eligible to the benefit of a particular noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the units, but due to certain reasons could not do so before the Supdt. (Prev-I), visit to their premises. Whatsoever M/s. Shankar Traders have to say in this regard, but no reasonable person can believe that any independent company can function and manufacture in this way in the premises of another company being fully dependent on them and carry on their business through their premises and under the management of the working partner of that company." The ld. Advocate is not able to produce any evidence before us that in fact two separate units existed in the same premises. On the contrary it has been admitted that the facilities of Shankar Traders were being utilised by M/s. Shankar Construction Co. and the evidence on record clearly show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no demarcation in regard to the factory premises is shown in the lease deed as such. In view of the above we hold that the appellants had suppressed the information from the Department for the relevant Central Excise purposes and the lower authority was right in invoking the longer period. The ratio of the discussion cited earlier apply to the facts of this case. We, therefore, confirm the duty demanded in terms of the impugned order. We, however, observe that the appellants are a small scale unit and the duty evaded is of the order of Rs. 47,534.10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we therefore hold that the ends of justice would be served if the penalty is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) and we order accordingly. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
