TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cking “AVON” brand seat covers manufactured in her premises. Except for this statement, there is nothing on record to establish that the appellants were all throughout engaged in the manufacture of seat covers with brand name of another person - appeal allowed. Regarding the appeal by M/s.Vibhor Enterprises, the appellants did not produce any supporting evidence regarding the specific date of receipt of die for the manufacture of branded goods. In absence of such evidence, no reliance can be placed on the assertion by the appellant to exclude a part of their clearance for duty liability. Not knowing the excise provisions for duty liability is not a factor for setting aside the duty demand. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal by M/s.Vibhor Enterprises - appeal dismissed. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellants. - Excise Appeal Nos.987, 1092 and 1211/2009-EX(DB) - Final Order Nos. 51850-51852/2017 - Dated:- 17-2-2017 - Hon ble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) S/Shri Amit Jain, Vipul Agarwal, Somesh Arora, Ms.Rinky Arora. for the petitioner Shri R.K. Manjhi, DR for the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issuing the impugned order. Personal hearing was conducted on 19.09.2007, whereas the order was passed on 28.01.2009, after a delay of over 16 months. On these two grounds alone, the order is liable to be set aside. 3. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the impugned order records contradictory observation and findings. The appellant is only a trader of goods in question, which were manufactured by the independent manufacturer. It is clear from the proceedings that individual manufacturers did file their defence and the same was examined by the Original Authority. These manufacturers even if they acted as job workers, the liability for central excise duty, if any, is upon them only. The Original Authority has concluded that the demand has to be against respective manufacturers. However, it was also recorded in the impugned order that M/s.Veekay Auto Accessories are responsible for creating fictitious firms to manufacture goods and for possessing/keeping/clearing of excisable goods valued at ₹ 5,19,06,839/- with central excise duty liability of ₹ 83,83,814/-. It is not clear as to who is the actual manufacturer in terms of the impugned order. The impugned order furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Original Authority. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 9. We take up the appeal filed by M/s.Veekay Auto Accessories first. The allegation against the said appellant is that they have fraudulently floated fictitious firms to suppress the actual manufacturing activity. We find the impugned order is self-contradictory in more than one aspect. It is clearly recorded, in more than one place that Shri Veekay Auto Accessories was controlling the day to day activities of the fictitious firms floated by the owner, to suppress the manufacture and thereby to evade payment of central excise duty. However, in the conclusion, no duty has been confirmed against the said appellant. We notice that central excise duty has been confirmed against various individual units viz. M/s. Laxmi Enterprises, M/s.Sagar Auto Centre, M/s.Irfan Seat Covers, M/s. Vibhor Enterprises, M/s. Do Bhai Auto Products and M/s. Newon Seat Covers. However, the Original Authority ordered appropriation of the amount deposited by M/s. Veekay Auto Accessories against the demands confirmed against these individual units. If these are fictitious firms, the question of confirming demand against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of confiscation shall be issued by the central excise officers without following the principles of natural justice. Not allowing the cross examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon and issuing the impugned order after almost 16 months of conclusion of hearing clearly violates the principles of natural justice. We find that the impugned order with reference to M/s.Veekay Auto Accessories suffers from serious, multiple legal infirmities and as such, cannot be sustained. 11. Regarding the appeal filed by M/s. Newon Seat Covers, we note that except for the statements recorded from the proprietor to the effect that the firm was established on the direction of Shri V.K. Arora, who gave design and style and also supplied packing materials for packing AVON brand seat covers manufactured in her premises. Except for this statement, there is nothing on record to establish that the appellants were all throughout engaged in the manufacture of seat covers with brand name of another person. To confirm a central excise duty, some corroborative evidence is certainly required. We note that the officers conducted the search of the appellant s premises on 17.12.2005, the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
