Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (8) TMI 610

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n made by the Assesse a fact contrary to the tenders/purchase orders, it was their duty to satisfy by adducing sufficient evidences before the Authorities in support of their claims. They did not discharge any duty before clearing the said goods to Railways - all tenders/purchase orders of different units of Railways have been accepted and executed by the assesse company representing themselves as manufacturer - before the goods were finally cleared to Railways, the assesse company used to inscribe ‘AEW’ which is their trade name along with manufacturing date - the necessary testing which is the pre-requisite for supply of the goods to Railway was done at the factory premises of the assesse - the job workers admitted that goods supplied .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ut payment of duty to different units of Indian Railways showing the said goods as trading items in their books of accounts and thereby indulged in evading the Central Excise duty involved thereon. It is noticed that the Applicant is registered with NSIC and RDSO as manufacturer and that they had procured the tender/order from Railways for supply of the goods claiming them to be manufacturer. Investigation conducted at the end of job workers has revealed that to execute the order job workers who appeared against summons stated that the Appellant had supplied the raw materials and specifications to the job workers/dealers, for processing as per specification. However, before the said materials could be delivered to Railway, final processing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... asting Wear Plate, Lock Lift Lever Hook, Universal Lock Lift Connector etc. Since the manufacturing process in applicant s own factory became unworkable because of labour unrest, the applicant since 2000/2001, started outsourcing of the orders of Railway components from the job workers. Such job workers were many during the relevant period, these being M/s. S.S. Enterprise, Saraswati Industries, Navin Enterprises, Unique Tube Industry, Gobinda Industries etc. The Ld. Advocate contended that these job workers were working independently and that only for delivery of the goods to Railways, the goods were brought at the applicant s premises. He, further, stated that testing is not the necessary requirement by the Railways before supply of goo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... attention of the Bench that in many cases the so called job workers were found to be non-existent and few of them which were found existing stated that they received the raw materials from the applicant company and supplied the goods processed by them which were not fully finished. He, therefore, vehemently opposed the applicant s contention that the goods supplied to Railways by the applicant company were trading items. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that the applicant company had supplied the goods i.e. parts of Railway wagon and bogie components to different units of Railways. As per Revenue, although the said goods were manufactured by the applicant, the said applicant however, showed them as trading items. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emises of the applicant. These findings prima facie contradict Applicant s contention that the goods are procured by them from the traders/ job workers. As regards the submission that the same issue was dropped by the earlier period, we find that under para 7.21 of the order, the adjudicating authority has given the categorical finding that the applicant s contention is untenable as the period involved and the evidences adduced differ substantially. Moreover, this aspect requires appreciation of evidences and shall be taken during final disposal of the case. 6. We also find that in similar circumstances, this Tribunal vide its order No. S-212-213/Kol/2012 dated 14/3/2012 in the case of M/s. Cosmic Engineers and Shri Raman Agarwal has take .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates