9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether M/s. SCM and M/s. SII have taken wrong benefits of Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-93 during 1994-95 as they were using brand-name of another person (WCPL) and have thus evaded Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 8,41,764.00 and Rs. 9,24,584.00 respectively. (ii) Whether M/s. WCPL, M/s. SCM and M/s. SII have clandestinely manufactured and cleared Basic Chromium Sulphate (BCS) and Sodium Sulphate from the quantities of Soda Ash found short at the time of physical verification on 7-9-94 and have thus evaded Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,29,477.00, Rs. 3,81,933.00 and Rs. 4,15,044.00 respectively. (iii) Whether M/s. WCPL have actually clandestinely cleared higher quantity of BCS and Sodium ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the same excisable goods were packed in gunny bags showing that they were manufactured by WCPL, SCM and SII. On examination of the RG-23A Part-1 accounts of the 3 units, it was found that the accounts relating to one of the major raw materials for production of basic chromium sulphate, viz. soda ash was not upto date in the case of any of the three units. On the basis of statements recorded from authorised signatories of WCPL and the other two units, the Department alleged that the appellants were wrongly availing the benefit of SSI Notification No. 1/93. 3. Appearing for the appellants, Shri M.G.S. Murthy, learned Advocate mainly contended that all the 3 units are registered separately and duly licensed for the production of ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sification lists remain unamended; that a plain reading of para 4 of the Notification with the Explanation III reveals that it is only "the specified goods bearing a brand name..... of another person", that become disentitled to the benefit of exemption and not the manufacturer/assessee; that where is the need for explanation III, if the manufacturer (and not the specified goods) becomes ineligible to claim the benefit of the exemption; it is no longer necessary to compute the aggregate value excluding the goods bearing the trade mark of another, if, regardless of aggregate values, the manufacturer becomes ineligible and all goods manufactured by him do not get the benefit; that the onus rests heavily on the Revenue to prove the user of log ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat on the contrary, the evidence of affidavits of customers has been dismissed lightly; that if the evidence on affidavits is not correct in law, the affidavit is a sworn statement and swearing a false affidavit is punishable offence, has to be accepted, if there is no evidence to the contrary; that above all, none of the above 370 bags was cleared and no liability to duty, again during the period 7-9-94 to 31-3-95 where there is neither an allegation nor evidence of continued use of logo of WCPL after raid on 7-9-94; that this being so, differential duty could not be demanded for the period between 7-9-94 and 31-3-95; that there is also no knowing of the actual differential duty due for the period 1-4-94 and 7-9-94; that the completed ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised on 29-6-96, which is beyond six months is barred by limitation; that after the raid no shortages, no use of logo was adverted to; that the entire case is an after-thought and cooked up; that no penalties leviable as the show cause notice does not specify the specific clause and the show cause notice also does not disclose the penalty amount; that the penalty on Shri Sodhi is also unwarranted as no specific offence is attributed. 4. The learned Advocate has referred many decisions in support of his contentions; that despite the request by the appellants, they were not supplied the copies of statements by the Revenue which were in favour of the appellants and which were specifically referred to in their reply to the show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
