TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cording statements of around 20 persons who had engaged ERTP for processing fabrics. It transpired in the investigation that one Shri V. Ramachandran, Proprietor of M/s. Nag Enterprises, Erode had coordinated between ERTP and their customers for facilitating processing of the fabrics and return of the fabrics to various persons who were also found to be exporters. A show-cause notice was issued to ERTP and Shri V. Ramachandran proposing to recover central excise duty evaded from ERTP and to penalize both ERTP and Shri V. Ramachandran of M/s. Nag Enterprises. Adjudicating the allegations, vide the impugned order, the Commissioner demanded excise duty to the tune of Rs. 4,00,72,500/- from ERTP and imposed equal amount of penalty on ERTP u/s 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coordinated the processing activity. In these cases bills for processing were raised by M/s. Nag Enterprises. Fabrics had been entrusted for processing by exporters of processed fabrics or readymade garments made out of them. The persons who had got the fabrics processed by ERTP were not required to incur any liability towards central excise duty as the processed fabrics or goods manufactured therefrom had been exported. Therefore the customers of ERTP had not colluded with ERTP in evading central excise duty. In the impugned order, in any case, there is no indication that Shri V. Ramachandran was aware of the central excise duty liability on the processed fabrics cleared by ERTP in the processing of which he had coordinated. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity to penalty under Rule 209A of the CER, 1944. The only fact found to arrive at conclusion that Shri V. Ramachandran had knowingly dealt with excisable goods liable for confiscation is that in a statement dated 10-10-2000, he had stated that at times processed fabrics were received from ERTP without bill/invoice. Though the Commissioner records that the private records and other correspondences of the customers evidenced involvement of the appellant in clearance of processed fabrics without payment of duty by ERTP, I have not been able to find any such evidence noted in the impugned order. In the absence of such evidence, the Commissioner s finding that Shri V. Ramachandran had dealt with fabrics liable to confiscation with the knowledge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
