9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the Central Excise and were paying duty on the aforesaid goods manufactured and cleared from their factory. 2.2 The officers of the Directorate General of Anti-Evasion Mumbai Zonal unit searched the applicant's factory on 22-7-1997 and seized certain records on the presumption that the applicant was adopting a modus operandi of clandestine removal of the excisable goods without payment of Central Excise duty by raising invoices in the names of fictitious firms. After recording various statements and further investigations, the Directorate General, Anti-Evasion issued a show cause notice F. No. DGAE/BZU /202/12(4) 80/97/506, dated 29-1-1998 alleging that the applicant had cleared said goods without payment of Central Excise duty during the period December, 1995 to 21st July, 1997 in contravention of Central Excise Rules by fraudulently removing the said goods in the names of three non-existant units floated under three fictitious firms, viz. M/s. Neha Refrigeration, M/s. Subhash Chandra and Brothers and M/s. Subhash Air-conditioning Pvt. Ltd. as well as under the invoices of M/s. Engineer Industries besides clandestine removal of copper waste, aluminium waste and copper tu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... geration, M/s. Subhash Chandra and Bros. and M/s. Subhash Air-Conditioning Pvt. Ltd. during the period December, 1995 to 21st July, 1997. 2.7 The ld. Advocate stated that these units were registered with Income-tax Department. No SCN has been issued to these 3 units even though the Department alleged that these are non-existing units. SCN ought to have been issued to them. He also stated that there was no evidence with the Department about the actual manufactured goods. The only evidence were the invoices raised in the name of M/s. Neha Refrigeration, M/s. Subhash Chandra & Brothers and M/s. Subhash Air-Conditioning Pvt. Ltd. The Department did not have any evidence to establish that the applicant had manufactured and clandestinely removed excisable goods without payment of Central Excise duty and whether the applicants in fact had manufactured the said goods in their factory or had the capacity to manufacture the said goods in their factory during the relevant period. 2.8 After receipt of the SCN they had employed the service of a Chartered Engineer to assess the manufacturing capacity of the machines installed in their factory. The Chartered Engineer after a detailed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with under sub-section (1) of Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commission directed the applicant to pay the admitted liability within 30 days of the receipt of a copy of the order. 2.11 The applicant filed a miscellaneous application dated 13-11-2000 seeking instalment facility of the admitted duty amount of Rs. 9,50,074. The same was heard by the Commission on 19-1-2001 along with the applications filed by S/Shri Subhash Chandra Sharma, Shitala Prasad Sharma and Shri Manoj Sharma all Directors of M/s. Sapna Coils Pvt. Ltd. on 20-11-2000. 2.12 During the hearing held on 19-1-2001, the Commission drew the attention of the ld. Advocate of the applicant to the Interim Order, dated 9-8-2000 wherein it had been directed that the admitted amount of Rs. 9,50,074/- should be paid within 30 days of receipt of the order and enquired whether the said amount had been paid. The ld. Advocate submitted that the applicant had paid the entire amount of Rs. 9,50,074/- by 13th January, 2001 but not within the period contained in the order. The Commission explained that the applicant ought to have themselves paid the interest due on the said admitted amount not paid withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Engineering Industries, which were all situated in Mumbai. It was further submitted that there were several records available with the Revenue to establish that these four units were in existence and it was not known as to why show cause notice was not issued to these units and as to why duty was not demanded therefrom. He argued that duty to be recovered from some other units could not be fastened to a unit which had not manufactured the goods. The ld. Advocate further placed emphasis on the applicant's written submission dated 29th January, 2002 to substantiate the existence of M/s. Neha Refrigeration, M/s. Subhash Chandra Bros. and M/s. Subhash Air-conditioning Pvt. Ltd. He argued that these so called fictitious concerns were in fact in existence. The ld. Advocate further argued that M/s. Engineer Industries, was, in fact, a registered unit and he drew the attention of the Commission to the fact that it had opted and paid Rs. 1,00,202/- under KVSS and the same was accepted by the Commissioner, Central Excise Mumbai-I vide his Order F.No. V/PI/30-185/KVSS-93/98/3493, dated 23-6-1999. 3.7 The ld. Advocate further submitted that the applicant had admitted Rs. 9,50,074/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antity of goods covered in the show cause notice. Similarly there was no evidence on record to prove that the raw material purchased by M/s. Neha Refrigeration, M/s. Subhash Chandra Brothers, M/s. Subhash Air-Conditioners and M/s. Engineering Industries were actually transported from Mumbai to Palghar where the factory of the applicant was situated. He further submitted that there was no direct reference in statements of the customers regarding the goods procured by the applicant from M/s. Neha Refrigeration, M/s. Subhash Chandra Brothers, M/s. Subhash Air-Conditioners and M/s. Engineering Industries that they were manufactured by the applicant's firm. 3.11.4 The Revenue at the end contended that they rely on the report of the Commissioner (Investigation) and also the order of the Settlement Commission in an earlier case of M/s. Sapna Engineering, where the facts were more or less similar to the existing case. 4. The Commission has gone through the records and heard the submissions made by the ld. Advocate and the Revenue. 4.2 In course of hearing, the Revenue was directed to summarise the case in the backdrop of the show cause notice issued and the submissions ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder duress or coercion, he would have complained to the Court about duress and illtreatment. (iv) The statements recorded, were corroborated by the documentary evidences available in the seized records. There are confessional statements of the officials of the various customers confirming the statements of these three persons of Sapna Group. 4.7 The defence taken by the applicant is after a period of 18 months. Case was booked on 22-7-1997. Applicant could have submitted or brought on records these facts during investigations when several statements were recorded. They had the opportunity when they were arrested and presented before the Magistrate. First show cause notice on the similar issue was issued on 5-8-1997 and last show cause notice on 29-9-1998. But applicant during this period were silent and were giving statements admitting the evasion of duty. Unless submitting the convincing reasons for the delay, the theory brought by the applicant before the Hon'ble Commission, may not be considered. Besides, no verifiable documentary evidence/data have been produced to substantiate their claim. The new theory now brought on records by the applicant may not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erifiable record to substaintiate their claim has been produced. (3) Goods supplied in the name of these concerns are not customer goods but industrial goods having specific drawings and design. Therefore, it is not possible that damaged/old parts would readily be available in the market whenever those are required. (4) Affidavits of so called suppliers are of doubtful nature as no supporting documents in respect of their supplies have been produced. (5) The so called suppliers have not maintained any record about their purchase/sale as per affidavits but have given precise information about exact quantity supplied during each year. (6) Applicants have not explained why no statutory records/ returns are available pertaining to these concerns. In seized private purchase registers, no entry having purchased damaged goods is reflected. (7) If M/s. NR, M/s. SA were engaged in repairing/servicing, then there was no need to file declarations with the C. Excise authorities in their name. Presuming that the claim of the applicant is factual, then they would have decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted from M/s. SC, Palghar during 1995-96, in the name of M/s. Neha Refrigeration (M/s. NR) , the word 'Palghar' has been mentioned in the private sales register. From 1996-97 onwards transactions effected from Palghar were distinguished by adding letter "P" in the private sales registers. Charts detailing official clearances on payment of duty of M/s. Sapna Engineering (M/s. SE) , M/s. Engineer Industries (M/s. EI) and M/s. SC, during 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 under Central Excise invoices are enclosed. Following observations can be made from these charts. (a) Not a single clearance from M/s. EI and M/s. SE, (on payment of duty) which are located in Bombay (Mumbai) have been distinguished by letter "P". (b) Clearances effected from M/s. SC, having factory at Palghar have been distinguished by letter "P" invariably. Similarly, clearances from M/s. NE having factory at Palghar, have also been distinguished by putting letter "P". (2) Supporting evidences are also available in the form of Statements of the officials of M/s. Kirloskar Pneumatics Co. Ltd., Pune who visited the factory premises of the Sapna Group. (3)&nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y indicates that the applicant have fabricated these chits to mislead the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. Evidences, submitted by the applicant appear to be fabricated to avoid payment of duty. 4.16 The RG 1 register pertaining to the period from February, 1996 to July, 1997 (up to 22-7-1997) of M/s. Sapna Coils Pvt. Ltd., Palghar, it is observed that the applicant had manufactured 12341 nos. of Condensers and Cooling Coils, against which Copper Scrap weighing 168.700 kgs. and Aluminium Scrap weighing 215.240 kgs; were accounted. On the other hand the applicant has accepted having cleared Copper Scrap weighing 2071.240 kgs. and Aluminium Scrap weighing 2471.240 kgs. without payment of duty. The Scrap is generated during the process of manufacture of the Condenser and Cooling Coils. As per RG 1 Register, accounted Aluminium and Copper Scrap is 384.500 kgs., against the manufactured quantity of 12341 nos. of Condenser and Cooling Coils. The average Scrap of Aluminium and Copper generated per coil works out to 0.031 kgs (384.500 kgs/12341 nos.). The applicant accepted having cleared Aluminium and Copper Scrap, totally weighing 4542.480 kgs., then the applicant had manufactured 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents received by these so called fictitious firms show that all the transactions were done by each of these so called fictitious firms. In nutshell, the seized records in the custody of the investigating agencies prove their physical existence. The comments on Chart I furnished by the Revenue vide their letter dated 20-11-2002 are as under : (a) The case is not based on any records at all. The only record is the statements all of which are retracted. Other records which are available are the records maintained by each of the Cos./firms/concerns referred to in the notice and maintained by them during the normal course of their business which only goes to prove that all these units were in existence. (b) There is no basis to suggest that the retraction in the form of letters or applications filed before the Hon'ble Magistrate cannot be called as the retraction. Copies of the retraction filed before the Court which are submitted during the proceedings before the Hon'ble Commission bears the endorsement of the Hon'ble Magistrate to forward a copy of the retraction to the Investigating Officer. Hence, there is no basis to contend that Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a professional who studied the factual position and drew up his conclusion based on technical datas. No investigation or effort has been made by the Revenue to disprove this certificate. During the various hearing before the Commission, the Revenue had consistently maintained that they are not challenging the C.E.'s Certificate. It is not a new theory put up by the applicant as the applicant could not have been expected to furnish the Chartered Engineer's Certificate at the time of investigation of the case as unless the charges against them are communicated to the applicants they cannot think or work on their defence. The theory of 'After thought' is therefore without any basis. In any case to prove the bona fides of the applicants, they are willing to present the Chartered Engineer for cross-examination by the Revenue or any technical personnel of the Revenue. Further the persons who had sold condemned Condensers/Scrap will be produced for cross-examination, if Revenue or Hon'ble Commission desires to. 5.3.4 The Purchase Registers maintained for the Sapna Group of Companies in fact show purchases by each of the alleged fictitious concerns. It is neither established by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cturing capacity is about Rs. 48 lacs in terms of value by merely looking at the production recorded for a particular month. If the Chartered Engineer's Certificate is not reliable the inconsistency therein may be broughtout by cross-examining the Chartered Engineer who has prepared the report. 5.4(a) The Revenue should not have pre-determined the issue whether the so called fictitious concerns were non-existing units as the determination of this issue should have been left to the Adjudicating authorities. The Revenue has therefore pre-judged the issue. In any case, the so called fictitious concerns have also been issued with show cause notices, by the Anti-Evasion, copies of which are enclosed. 5.5 Here again, the comments expose the Revenue for having predetermined an issue which goes to the root of the case. The fundamental dispute in the present case is as to who were the Manufacturers of the goods referred to in the various annexures to the show cause notices in respect of which duty is demanded. Having decided to issue the notice only to two Companies, the Revenue has pre-judged the core issue in dispute and concluded without any cogent evidence that others are fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e unless contents thereof are disproved with cogent reasons as sound evidence. Applicants are prepared to produce the deponents of these Affidavits for cross-examination by the Revenue. 5.6.7 The suppliers were maintaining kacha records such as chits and pocket diaries indicating sale of old, used and scrapped air-conditioners sold by them which formed the basis for indicating the quantity in the affidavit. 5.6.8 These firms (M/s. Neha Refrigeration, M/s. Subhash Chandra Brothers, M/s. Subhash Air-conditioning Pvt . Ltd.) were not required to file any statutory records or returns with the Central Excise Deptt. since they were not engaged in any manufacturing activities. Further, cash purchases were not entered in the Purchase Registers. However, the bank statements show cash withdrawals by M/s. Neha Refrigeration, M/s. Subhash Chandra Brothers, M/s. Subhash Air-conditioning Pvt. Ltd. which was the source for payment towards goods purchased on cash basis. Copy of bank statement is enclosed. 5.6.9 M/s. Neha Refrigeration, M/s. Subhash Air-conditioning Pvt. Ltd. and Subhash Chandra Brothers had intention to manufacture within the exemption limit, that is why the decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion whose records show clearance of goods in respect of which the present demand is made. Revenue should not have assumed that M/s. Sapna Engineering and M/s. Sapna Coils were the manufacturers of the goods. 5.7.5 Applicants have not claimed or even suggested anywhere in the proceedings that M/s. Engineering Industries were engaged in the repairing work. Otherwise also, the explanation as to why the statutory records like RT 12 Returns and balance sheet, etc., of M/s. Engineering Industries did not reflect the repairing work undertaken by them should be offered by M/s. Engineering Industries and the applicant cannot give any explanation in this regard. Therefore, unless a notice is issued to M/s. Engineering Industries such explanation would not come on record. 5.7.6 There are enough documentary evidences on record to support the stand taken by the applicant. Besides the Private Purchase Registers also show purchase of raw materials by M/s. Neha Refrigeration, M/s. Subhash Chandra Brothers, M/s. Subhash Air-conditioning Pvt. Ltd. 5.8 Cash purchases were not entered in the Private Purchase Registers and since the damaged goods/condemned air-conditioners were purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue invoices in the name of those alleged units though there was no manufacturing activities in those units. All the goods in question have been manufactured at Palghar. This contention is sought to be supported with reference to purchase of raw material register, private sales registers, invoices issued and statement dt. 14-8-97 recorded from Shri Kalianpurkar of M/s. Voltas. 6.2 In the said statement the relevant portions underlined by the Revenue relates to question No. 4, question No. 9 and question No. 10 and answers thereto. The said questions and answers are reproduced below : "Q(4) Have you personally visited manufacturing place of any of the above-mentioned concerns any time ? If so when ? At what address? Can you please describe place you visited, machinery installed therein, persons you met, etc. ? (A) I have visited Neha Refrigeration at Mazgaon Thakkar Indl. Estate some three years ago to see the facilities for. I was shown some 3 or 4 Galas. Q(9) Now I am showing you supplies Datas furnished by M/s. Neha Refrigeration, M/s. Subhash Chandra and Bros. and M/s. Subhash Air-conditioning Pvt. Ltd. produced by you today. Please go through the same an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded that each of the units who have issued their invoices are independent manufacturer/repairer, etc., having their own business of repair/manufacturing and who have in course of time either issued with a show cause notice or had approached the concerned Central Excise Authority for settlement of their case under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme in relation to certain other alleged acts of commission and omission. In view of this submission which has been conceded by Revenue at the time of hearing that they have used the term "dummy unit" for want of a better expression, it cannot but be concluded that there is no evidence on record to show any financial flow back from any of the so called alleged dummy units. 6.5 The Revenue has used the term "Sapna Group" in its submission, inasmuch as the fact that S/Shri Subhash Chandra Sharma, Manoj Sharma and S.P. Sharma is either Proprietor or Director of Units referred to in the show cause notice. The Tribunal has held that clubbing of value of clearance is permissible if there is a financial flow back or sharing of profits. In the instant case the Revenue has not proved any financial flow back. In the purchase register as well as the privat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d supra) wherein it has been clearly held that dummy unit has to only remain on paper and such an existence has been created for the purposes of tax evasion. In this case particularly, there is an existence of unit and the department was required to have shown the financial flow back and sharing of profits and for that they ought to have issued show cause notice to the other unit, which has not been done in the present case and in view of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Ogesh Industries and in the case of Hindustan Foam Industry, the contention of the appellants that non-issue of show cause notice has vitiated the proceedings, is required to be upheld and on this ground alone, the appellants are entitled to succeed." 6.5.2 The Revenue has submitted that the retraction statements made before the Magistrate was not forwarded to it by the applicant or Magistrate. On the issue of relevance of retracted statements, the provisions in the Evidence Act has a bearing. Chapter II on 'Of the Relevancy of Facts' of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the terms 'admission' and 'confession' have been defined in Section 17 and Section 24 respectively. 'Admission' is made in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a respectable citizen of the place, therefore, in order, to avoid arrest, he had deposited the amount of Rs. 75,000/-. It is contended that the records itself would disclose that there was only trading activity and there was evidence available to show that what was received from the job workers was directly handed over to the customers. Their further contention is that they received old parts also for repairs and the seized records itself would disclose this aspect of the matter. Their further contention is that the Commissioner ought to have determined the correct classification of each of the item and arrived at the value after giving deductions. On consideration of these additional arguments of the learned Counsel, we find that there is sufficient force in the said arguments and in the defence taken by the appellants. The Commissioner has noted in the impugned order about the various activity carried out by the job workers. The point which has been missed by the Commissioner for consideration is as to whether the items which came back to Brinda Industrials had to undergo any further processing at their hands to bring into existence any new goods for the purpose of classificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de novo consideration in the light of the above observation." 6.5.3 The Tribunal in the case of Premier Printers v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin reported in 2000 (126) E.L.T. 788 (Tribunal) was considering the case of clubbing of value of production of 2 units. The Tribunal in the said case has held as below : "We have carefully considered the rival submissions and records of the case. We find that apart from the statements of the three persons on record two of which had been retracted at the time of reply to the show cause through affidavits, there is no other evidence on record to conclusively prove that there was no production in the factory of M/s. Premier Paper Converters and therefore whatever goods were on record as having manufactured they should be clubbed with the appellants. We also find that there is no allegation of mutuality of interest or financial flow back between the two companies. We also find that it is clear from the verification report of the Superintendent of Central Excise that machinery installed in the premises of M/s. Premier Paper Converters was capable of being operated even with single phase motor and that single phase electric supply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the submissions of both sides and on going through the records, we notice that the allegation made is solely on the basis that one of the Directors of M/s. TTPL, Printing Division had floated M/s. KAAAPD with one of its Directors being a partner therein. On this aspect of the matter, the law is well settled that the two independent units, one incorporated under the Company's Act and another which is a proprietory or partnership firm cannot be clubbed merely because same were having transactions. So long as it is shown that they are independently operating with separate transactions in terms of purchase and sale of inputs and manufacture of items and sale to the independent buyers besides, maintaining separate registrations and records and assessments were done, then in such an event without any financial flow back and mutuality of interest between either of the company, the Revenue cannot club the clearances. In the present case, it is not a finding of mere clubbing of units but the Commissioner has taken the firm as a dummy unit. Dummy unit is a unit which is not in existence but it is created only on paper, as held in Alpha Toyo Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi -1994 (71) E.L.T. 689. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tnam Port Trust. (iv) that even though, there were separate mixing machines, bench room, moulds and water curing tanks after 18-2-1993, the sleepers manufactured by both M/s. VPP and M/s. UPU were kept mixed up which according to them was due to paucity of space; (v) that there was one testing laboratory for both M/s. VPP and M/s. UPU (as per the statement of Shri C. N. Velayudha, General Manager of M/s. VPP). 6.7.2 After examining the rival contentions the Tribunal has concluded as below : "We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and have perused the records. The main grounds for the Revenue to proceed against M/s. VPP to club clearances with M/s. UPU as can be seen from the charge and the findings given by the Commissioner is that M/s. VPP is managed by Mr. M. S. Raju as Chairman and Managing Director when he was also proprietor of M/s. UPU; that the said second unit M/s. UPU has been a proxy unit and it has been so solely with a view to avoid payment of duty. The other ground taken for denying the benefit of notification to M/s. UPU when considering it as independent is M/s. VPP had advanced funds to M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cheryl Laboratories - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 596 (T) = 1993 (45) ECR 194 (T); A. Rathinam, Prop. Michael Match Works v. CCE - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 451 (T) = 1992 (41) ECR 426 (T); Prima Controls Pvt. Ltd. - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 62 (T); Lakshmi Industries - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 893 (T); Rang Udyog - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 648 (T); C.C.E. v. Shakthi Steel Industries - 1993 (46) ECR 453 (T); Alpha Toyo Ltd. - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 689; Mico Ltd. - 1999 (111) E.L.T. 163 (T) and Sri Natarajan Industries - 2000 (123) E.L.T. 1016 and Polyene General Industries Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 1198. Further, we notice that the Board of Central Excise & Customs has also issued a circular under Section 37B of Central Excise Act, reported in 1993 (45) ECR 47C which lays down that criteria for the purpose of clubbing the units. This bench in the case of Ranka Alcop & 2 Others by final order Nos. 1406 to 1408/2000, dated 6-10-2000 has remanded the matter to the original authority to examine the issue of clubbing of unit in the light of the case law and the Board's circular. Therefore, in keeping with the judicial discipline, we have to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority with a direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Niton Firm as well as Director of both Inventa Co. and Niton Co. Smt. S. P. Jain's role in the management was quite similar. Her husband, Shri P.V. Jain was Director of both the companies, Shri V. R. Sharif's wife, Smt. N. V. Sharif was also Director of both the companies; (c) All the machinery required for complete manufacture of valves were not installed in any one of the units and whatever machinery installed in any of the units was shared by all the three units. Niton Firm's work of shaping i.e. T-slotting of spindle (as essential part of valves) was done on the shaping machine of Inventa Co. while the welding work of Inventa Co. was done on the welding machine of Niton Firm; (d) The workers/staff of each unit worked for all the units and a common staff register was maintained by the three units; (e) The three units had a common storage of their raw materials and each unit's requisition slips for raw materials were issued in the name of Niton Firm; (f) The components of valves manufactured in the three units were conveniently interchanged without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the inter-relations in the three units were not strong enough to be conclusive evidence against them. The 'inter-relations' as observed by the department were manifold, which were segregable with reference to management, machinery, labour, raw material, finished product, finance and the like. With regard to the financial interrelations, ld. Collector recorded a specific finding that the financial transactions between the units could not be termed as mutuality of interest. This specific finding has not been challenged by the Revenue in the present appeals, nor is there any grievance about the Collector's acceptance of what the parties in their counter to the SCN, submitted/explained/clarified vis-a-vis the department's findings against them on other counts viz. common management, common employment of workers/staff, common storage of raw materials, sharing of telephone facility, manufacture by one unit against orders procured in the name of another, use of common brand name on product and common drawing and designing. We find that the challenge in these appeals lies within a narrow compass inasmuch as it rests only on two grounds viz. (i) The plant and machinery of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to in para 11 of their decision and has observed that 'a person being a Director of two companies is not indicative of the fact that one company is dummy of the other. They are two distinct entities in the eye of law'. 6.7.5. It is apparent from records and pleadings in this case that no show cause notice has been issued to the alleged dummy units. In the absence of any notice, the applicants and alleged dummy units do not have any opportunity to defend themselves. There is no adequate evidence to support the alleged contention that the impugned goods have been manufactured by the applicants and not by respective units who have purported to have issued invoices, purchased raw materials, licenced with other agencies, filed declaration, etc. The Revenue in various places is also referring as "Sapna Group" as discussed supra, with reference to persons named in the show cause notice some of them being common to more than one units. Such facts will not make the units inter-related for purpose of levy of duty on one in exclusion of others. In this connection it may be mentioned that duty of excise if any charged is Modvatable. The applicant has issued invoices indicating the dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication for extension as required under sub-section (4) of Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Interest : The applicant is liable to pay interest on delayed payment of Rs. 9,50,074/-. As the applicant has received copy of the order dt. 9-8-2000 allowing the application to be proceeded with on dt. 20-8-2000, the admitted amount should have been paid on or before 19-9-2000 i.e. within 30 days thereafter. The interest is to be calculated at the rate of 18% p.a. The applicant shall calculate the interest accordingly and pay the same under intimation to Revenue and the Commission. The Revenue shall also check up the correctness of the calculation and inform the Commission suitably, if there is any variation in the said calculation. The aforesaid payment should be made within 30 days of receipt of the copy of this order. 3. Fine and penalty : The Commission finds that the applicant has cooperated with the Settlement Commission and has made a full and true disclosure. The Commission therefore grants immunity from imposition of fine and penalty against applicants. . Prosecution : The applicants having cooperated with the Settlement Commission and having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
