TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Shri Govardhan Textiles. An admission made by the sole beneficiary of such an activity is itself enough to hold against the appellants. - adjudicating authority was correct in coming to the conclusion in holding that the appellant Shri Krishna Screen Print Art is liable to be visited with the duty liability, interest thereof and penalty; penalty on Shri Rajan Ishwar Jariwala and M/s. Shri Govardhan Textiles. - Decided against the assessee. - E/240-242/2006-DB - ORDER No. A/10859 -10861/2014 - Dated:- 23-4-2014 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Devan parikh (Sr. Advocate) and Shri Nirav Shah (Advocate) For the Respondent : Shri S.K. Mall (A.R.) JUDGEMENT Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran; All these three appeals are arising out of common order in original and raise the same issue on facts and law, hence are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the relevant facts that arise for consideration that the appellant Shri Krishna Screen Print Art (main appellant) is a manufacturer of processed fabrics, processed on machines with the aid of power. On a visit by the officers to the premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the matter needs to be remanded back on basic aspects :- That Shri Krishna Screen Print Art does not have installed capacity of manufacturing of more than 30,000 to 40,000 Mtrs. and relied upon the certificate of the Chartered Engineer. It is also his submission that the Ld. Commissioner could not have decided the production capacity of the main appellant as if he is an expert, Even at said stage, Tribunal has consistently remanded matters when production capacity has not been being considered, The adjudicating authority has erred in not considering the electricity consumption figures put forth by the appellant in proper perspective, There are basic errors while making calculations as well as confirming the demand which would be relevant and not considered, The statements of Shri Rajan Ishwar Jariwala has been properly explained at the time of personal hearing but was not properly considered, The Departments worksheet shows entire quantity in packing register recovered from M/s. Sunira Traders was attributable towards the demand while it is on record that M/s. Sunira Traders were doing folding of many other persons also. 3.1. After making above s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is his submission that in light of the weak link between the packing register and the main appellant, merely on the basis of such a packing register, departments case cannot be sustained. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority has not considered the submissions made by the appellant that during the course of investigation and also adjudication, voluminous documents were provided by M/s. Shri Govardhan Textiles in support of their claim that the goods which were manufactured at M/s. Shri Govardhan Textiles were infact were hand processed. 3.3. It is his submission that though statements of Shri Rajan Ishwar Jariwala were recorded time and again, were retracted by affidavits at the first instant, and his first statement is also doubtful in as much as, the said statement was indicated as being recorded on 03.11.2001 but signatures of the officers and Shri Rajan Ishwar Jariwala are dated 02.11.2001. It is his submission that the statements of Shri Rajan Ishwar Jariwala is the only evidence which is available with the department on the basis of which the demand has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority and is not enough evidence for doing so. 4. Learned Add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Traders which clearly suggested that fabrics were processed at Shri Krishna Screen Print Art clandestinely cleared on the invoices of M/s. Shri Govardhan Textiles after cutting and folding / packing at M/s. Sunira Traders to evade duty. It is his submission that not stock taking was taken at the premises of main appellant is an admitted fact, but submits that it is not the claim of the revenue that after cutting, folding and packing, the goods were sent back to Shri Krishna Screen Print Art. It is also his submission that Shri Rajan Ishwar Jariwala being a proprietor of M/s. Sunira Traders and Shri Krishna Screen Print Art categorically admitted that fabrics were processed in Shri Krishna Screen Print Art with the aid of power and cleared on the invoices of M/s. Shri Govardhan Textiles. It is also his submission that the suppliers of grey fabrics categorically admitted in their statements that the accounts would finalized as regarding the processing of grey fabrics only with Shri Rajan Ishwar Jariwala who they know as proprietor of Shri Krishna Screen Print Art. It is his submission that the documents proving that M/s. Shri Govardhan Textiles were engaged in hand processing is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stine removal and hence appeals filed by the appellant need to be rejected. 5. In a detailed rejoinder Ld. Counsel would again submit that there were voluminous records of purchases of chemicals, materials and grey fabrics by M/s. Shri Govardhan Textiles which were consumed in hand processing of textiles which were sent for cutting, folding and packing to M/s. Sunira Traders. It is his submission that the octroi receipts which are produced by the appellant regarding discharge of octroi by M/s. Shri Govardhan Textiles conclusively prove that the said materials were purchased and used in the manufacturing by M/s. Shri Govardhan Textiles. It is his submission that the tables were taken on rent for hand processing by M/s. Shri Govardhan Textiles is conclusively evidenced by the payment made by them to such persons who hire out the tables to them. He would also submit that the revenue s case is of processing of such a huge quantity of textiles in Shri Krishna Screen Print Art is totally unsubstantiated as to factory of Shri Krishna Screen Print Art had no capacity to manufacture the same and revenue has not brought in any expert evidence. 6. We have considered the submissions made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, 07.02.2005 and 08.02.2005 were recorded almost after three to four years from the date of first visit of the investigating officers. During the entire recording of the statements on these dates, both Shri Rajan Ishwar Jariwala and Shri Narendra Solanki have admitted that the registers from which the duty liability has been worked out on Shri Krishna Screen Print Art was correct. We also find that the said entries in the packing register were sought to be disputed by the Ld. Counsel on the ground that only 10% of the entries match. We find no force in such an argument, as Shri Rajan Ishwar Jariwala who is the sole person who is aware of entire activity of Shri Krishna Screen Print Art, M/s. Shri Govardhan Textiles, M/s. Sunira Traders and M/s. Sunita Textiles, was in the knowledge of the entire activity and was the only beneficiary of the evaded duty, which was not paid on the manmade fabrics which were processed on machine in Shri Krishna Screen Print Art and cleared as hand processed material of M/s. Shri Govardhan Textiles. 11. Secondly, we find that that statements of Shri Rajan Ishwar Jariwala dated 29.12.2004, 18.01.2005, 07.02.2005 were specifically indicating that he w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch indicate retraction, does not show the information as has been sought to be canvassed by the appellant before the Tribunal. 13. Fourthly, it is a case of the appellant that appellant had no capacity to manufacture the quantum of processed fabrics on which duty has been demanded, also is unsubstantiated in as much as, the certificate issued and relied upon by the appellant is given by a Chartered Engineer in the year 2005. On perusal of the said certificate, we find that the said certificate does not indicate as to whether the Chartered Engineer visited the factory premises of appellant Shri Krishna Screen Print Art or whether he witnessed the production for any specific period. We find strong force in the contentions raised by Ld. Departmental Representative that the said certificate has no evidentiary value in the absence details of machinery in installed and noticed as working, by the Chartered Engineer. 14. Another feeble attempt was made by the Ld. Counsel to state that the production capacity of Shri Krishna Screen Print Art was the same as is recorded in the RG-1 register, we find that such an argument is incorrect in as much as, the RG-1 register records only the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
