TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 2,000/- on Shri Jayeshbhai J. Patel, Clerk of M/s Ashwin Chemicals. 2. The facts of the case leading to the present appeals are that Central Excise Officers of Ahmedabad visited the factories of the Appellants on 28-2-1988 and observed that the Appellant s Company was engaged in the manufacture of Sodium Sulphate and Sodium Bisulphate. On verification of account-cum-records, it was observed that M/s. Ashwin Chemicals had also manufactured the above products in the name of M/s Dinesh Chemicals and availed exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985 and 175/86, dated 1-3-1986. 3. Shri Pradipkumar Ramanlal Patel, Partner of M/s Ashwin Chemicals in his statement recorded on 7-5-1990 stated that he was looking after the produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tments. 6. On verification of the electricity consumption bills dated 10-6-1986 for April, 86 and May, 86 Shri Patel confirmed that the amount of the bill dated 10-6-86 was more than that of 15-10-1986 even though there was no production during the period April, 86 to August, 86 in M/s. Dinesh Chemicals and that the production of September, 86 was not adjusted; that M/s. Dinesh Chemicals had not manufactured any goods in September, 86, but the goods manufactured by M/s. Ashwin Chemicals was adjusted. 7. Shri Jayeshbhai Jayantilal Patel in his statement recorded on 8-9-89 further deposed that he was working in both the units but was getting salary from M/s. Ashwin Chemicals; that he was looking after the maintenance of Central Excise rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for each variety was different; that the demand relates to June 1985 to February, 1986 while the figures relied upon relate October, 1987, June, 1986, August, 1987, December, 1986, and the period 1984-85; that there is no evidence brought on record for the material period for which the demand has been raised. 10. After careful consideration of the submissions, the lower authorities held as indicated above. 11. Shri V.R. Sethi, the ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellants, submitted that for the following reasons, the demand has been confirmed: (a) During April and May, 1986, there was consumption of electricity, but no production in M/s. Dinesh Chemicals. On this allegation, the ld. Counsel submitted that the period of dispute is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce is not relevant to the present case. (d) Difference in December, 86 regarding consumption of electricity vis-a-vis production as compared in both the units. The ld. Counsel submitted that this consumption of electricity is not relevant in as much as production of December, 1986 is not relevant to the present case. (e) Balance sheet of 1984-85 showing electricity expenses of Rs. 89,502.94/- as against a sale of Rs. 26,27,855/- in the firm of Appellant No. 1 and electricity expenses of Rs. 8,042.25 against a sale of Rs. 18,65,887/- in the factory of M/s. Dinesh Chemicals. The ld. Counsel, on this count, submitted that sometimes the bills are not issued regularly. Even in some cases, the bills are not paid regularly and the amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [1997 (20) R.L.T. 524 (T) A.C. Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. v. CCE] [1996 (86) E.L.T. 351 (T) = 1996 (14) RLT 878 (T) - Cardcure Engg. Co. v. CCE] [1996 (83) E.L.T. 648 (T) = 1996 (14) RLT 267 (T) - Rang Udyog Ors. v. CCE] [1997 (80) E.L.T. 438 (T) = 1995 (11) RLT 276 T - Binod Kumar Maheswari v. CCE (Para 5.6)] [1995 (78) E.L.T. 556 (T) = 1995 (9) RLT 825 - Santa Industrial Ors. v. CCE (Ref. Para 16)] [1994 (71) E.L.T. 689 T - Alpha Toyo Ltd. v. CCE] [1988 (35) E.L.T. 581 T - CCE, Bombay v. Srinagar Cosmetics P. Ltd.] 14. The ld. Counsel submitted that in view of the above submissions and the evidence on record, the appeals may be allowed. 15. In reply, Shri A.K. Madan, the ld. SDR submitted that irregularities were found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... work of 2 units. A Partner of a firm is a responsible person. His statement cannot be brushed aside when the same is corroborated by the statement of the clerk. No evidence has been placed on record to show that during the material period the position was otherwise than the one brought out in the Show Cause Notice. No doubt, some typographical errors had crept in. We agree that the figures indicated in the impugned order pertain to periods other than the period from June, 1985 to March 1986. But these figures bring out the fact that some times the production and activities of M/s. Dinesh Chemicals did not conform to the pattern that they were manufacturing goods. Thus, they are, though, not concerned to the disputed period, but they clearl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
