TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sign (Ch. 8311.00). It is a proprietary firm owned by one Lalit K. Soni situated in the same building is another firm M/s. Sign Crafts owned by his wife engaged in similar activity enjoys exemption under Notification 11/88 (N.T.) as its turnover is below the exemption limit. A perfect set up for Central Excise officers visit and investigation. They did and the allegations are : (1) M/s. Sign Crafts (S.C) is a dummy unit of M/s. Bombay Neon Sign. (2) M/s. BNS clear fresh (?) goods in the guise of repair works. (3) M/s. BNS clears illuminated signs in the guise of non-illuminated. (4) Since M/s. Sign Crafts is a dummy unit, its clearances are liable to be clubbed with the ones of M/s. BNS for the purpose of calculating the exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presenting Smt. Sunita L. Soni, admits that no manufacturing activity goes on in M/s. Sign Craft, and that except cutting and grinding machines no machinery is installed in M/s. Sign Craft. Illuminated Sign Board cannot be made without electricity. (i) The average monthly electricity bills of M/s. Sign Craft from 88 to 92 is only Rs. 25/- to 30/- whereas of M/s. Bombay Neon Signs is Rs. 1,200/- to 1,300/- which only proves that no manufacturing activity goes on in M/s. Sign Craft. (j) One Kasinath Divekar, an employee of M/s. Sign Craft admits that the premises of M/s. Sign Craft are used only as a storage place for goods made by M/s. Bombay Neon Sign. The photograph taken at the time of drawing of Panchnama also records that no manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no attempt to remove fresh goods in the garb of repair jobs to evade payment of duty by M/s. Bombay Neon Sign and that M/s. Bombay Neon Sign were manufacturing both types i.e. illuminated and non-illuminated neon signs. She however held that the assessee (M/s. Bombay Neon Sign) did not follow the procedure under Rule 173H in so far as the Neon Sign found in the premises of M/s. Sign Craft, confiscated it but allowed to be redeemed it on payment of fine. The Commissioner also held that M/s. Bombay Neon Sign exceeded the exemption limit of Rs. 15 lakhs per year under Notification No. 175/86 to the extent of Rs. 15,146/- in the year 88-99 and therefore are liable to pay duty on this amount which worked out to be 3975.85 (BED +SED). T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in fact dealt with the evidence on merits with the help of the case law. He pleaded that there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner. 9. We observe that the Revenue s plea that the Commissioner in the impugned order, failed to appreciate the evidence in the form of statements of employees, electricity bills, workers wage register etc. before concluding that M/s. Bombay Neon Sign and M/s. Sign Craft are independent of each other, is not correct. The Commissioner precisely observed that the fact that the two units are situated in close proximity, that both have some common employees, that they have common management office and that they have common electric connection is not enough to conclude that one of them is a dummy unit. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt s evidence in the forms of employees statements has to be viewed in the light of what the employers themselves have to say about the nature of their firms. Further electricity consumption being so low in M/s. Sign Craft s firm is explained by the proprietress of the firm. The Commissioner s reliance on the decisions in Steel Traders [2003 (160) E.L.T. 1105 (T) = 1994 (55) ECR 348] and Alpha Toys [1994 (71) E.L.T. 689] cases is appropriate. Basically what the Commissioner has done is to take into consideration the nature of evidence the Department gathered and decided whether or not the dummy nature of one of the firms is established. This, she has done with the help of the case law on the subject. 11. The Commissioner also examined th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1985 (19) E.L.T. 285 wherein the Tribunal held quote ......The utmost accuracy and certainty must be the aim of a notice of this kind and not a shot in the dark like the notice before us unquote. The Commissioner holds that to come to conclusion that the assessee in the present case is only manufacturing illuminated signs but creating a make believe that non-illuminated signs were also being manufactured by him, evidence of a higher quality is required. Merely sighting one or two instances of mismatch in the invoice and gate passes, is not enough to quantify evasion of duty. We observe that the assessees have explained how mistakes were committed in the case of goods supplied to M/s. Grasim Industries and M/s. Dawat Restaurant and how t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
