9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wo respondents (hereinafter referred to as `the assessees') were initiated on the basis of show cause notice dated 10.2.2003. In this show cause notice main allegation was that both the units were run by Sh. Someshbhari Satishbhari Malik who was directing all the activities of both these firms. This notice gives the details and the material on the basis of which aforesaid allegation was made. The said details and the material was collected during the course of search of the two premises on 13.8.2002. It was, inter alia, found during the search that some processes were carried out through job workers but neither the details of job work done at M/s Sumcon Auto Ltd. nor the details of the assembling work of watch cases being done at M/s. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at by the Commissioner was that M/s. Satyam Technocast was the manufacturer of excisable goods as was stated in the show cause notice. Next issue which concerns us is issue No.VI: - whether clearances of M/s. Satyam Technocast and Pioneer Hardware could be clubbed for the purpose of SSI exemption? The findings on this issue read as under:- "M/s. Pioneer Hardware Industries was a partnership firm which was dissolved on 16-07-2001. Shri Somesh Malik was a partner in this firm and was managing its affairs. The firm was dissolved by Dissolution Deed dt. 16-07-2001. As per this Dissolution Deed, the business of M/s. Pioneer Hardware Industries including its assets and liabilities, were to be taken over by Shri Somesh Malik who is also the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in respect of same consignment and on this the Commissioner gave the following findings: "As already determined, M/s. Satya, Technocast as well as M/s. Pioneer Hardware Industries were clearing the goods under fictitious invoices, which accompanied the consignment. Such invoices showed lesser quantity/value than the actual quantity/value which was correctly recorded and reflected in the 'Order Estimate', 'Debit Note or 'Memo'. Therefore, a consignment dispatched under an L.R. was covered in the fictitious invoice as well as in the 'Order Estimate' or 'Debit Note'. The Noticees vehemently plead for exclusion of such duplication from the clearance value." The instances of duplication are also mention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b) Duplication: (i) 5 invoices in the name of M/s. Alpa Hardware : Rs.57,446 (ii) 28 invoices of M/s. Satyam Technocast : Rs.2,87,945 Total : Rs.3,45,391 Clearance Value after deducting duplication (a-b) : Rs.1,32,47,426 Duty Liability for 2002-03 : (a) for first 100 lakhs : Nil (as per Not. No. 08/2002) (b) On rest : Rs.32,47,426/- VALUE ON WHICH DUTY IS TO BE CHARGED : Cum-duty value permissible deductions / 1 + rate of duty = 32,47,426 / - 1.16 = Rs. 27,99,505 Duty to be recovered (2002-03) : Rs. 27,99,505 / - X 16% = Rs. 4,47,921 Total duty liability during 2001-02 and 2002-03 : Rs.27,47,267 / - On that basis the final order which was passed reads as un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n them under section 11 AC of the said Central Excise Act, 1944." Both the respondents filed appeals before the CESTAT against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner. The Tribunal vide the impugned judgment dated 11.3.2004 has set aside the order of the Commissioner. On going through the order of the Tribunal we find that the prime reason given by the Tribunal in support of its order is that there is hardly any evidence on record to prove the allegations made against the two respondents herein. We find this to be totally erroneous. We have already reproduced the material which was relied upon by the Commissioner in his order. It is for this reason that some of the discussion from the order of the Commissioner is extracted as well. Faced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
