9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n confirmed. This Order-in-Original dated 26.2.2009 imposes equivalent penalty on the assessee namely Kanchan Processors Pvt Ltd. The impugned order dated 26.02.2009 imposes penalties of Rs. 35 lakh on M/s Kanchan Wooltex Pvt Ltd and of Rs. 20 lakhs each on Shri Nilesh Bangar, Director of M/s Kanchan Processors Pvt Ltd and on Shri Jayesh Bangar, Director of M/s Wooltex Pvt Ltd. 2. In case of remaining two appeals, one has been filed by M/s Kanchan Processors (P) Ltd (bearing No.E/810/2009) against Order-in-Appeal No.252-253/2008 dated 19.12.2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur II. 2.1 Remaining last appeal (no. E/911/2009) is cross appeal filed by the Revenue (CEE, Jaipur II) against same Order-in-Appeal No.252-253/2008 dated 19.12.2008 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) Jaipur II. 3. All appeals have been represented by the ld. Advocate, Shri Bipin Garg and the Revenue has been represented by ld. AR, Shri Amresh Jain. 4. Firstly, we take up the appeals [No. 810 & 911], which have been filed by the assessee M/s Kanchan Processors Pvt Ltd and cross appeal filed by the Commissioner Central Excise, Jaipur II respectively against the common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in-Appeal dated 19.12.2008. In this regard, the observations of Commissioner (Appeals) in para 8 of the impugned order are as follows: "8. Further, in this case, I find that a quantity of 183842.80 mtrs. of fabrics was seized for the reason that specification of these fabrics were not tallying with the specification of fabrics found entered in their computer stock. It was therefore alleged that the said processed fabrics were lying unaccounted for and stored with an intent to remove the same clandestinely without payment of duty. The appellants submitted various detailed Annexures from "A" to "W" in this regard which were examined in detail as above. The appellants produced these Annexure in respect of 159201.90 mtrs. of fabrics (in fact it is 159204.84 mtrs.). Thus, the appellants have not challenged about the seizure of rest of the quantity of 24637.96 mtrs. i.e. (1,83,842.80- 1,59,204.84). As discussed in foregoing paras, there appears some mistakes in respect of 85652.74 mtrs. of fabrics out of 159204.84 mtrs. of fabrics due to the various factors. These factors are mainly due to apparent error in recording of measurement at the time of physical verification of stock. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brics falling under Chapters 54 and 55 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Kanchan Group consists of Kanchan Processors (P) Ltd, Kanchan Wooltex (P) Ltd and Kanchan Woollens (P) Ltd. Based on the intelligence, the officers of the DGCEI (Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence) searched various premises, residence etc related to the Group on 19.9.2003. ii. Consequent to the searches: a. 3,40,084.15 mtrs of processed fabric found physically was detained at Kanchan Processors (P) Ltd (KPPL) for further verification. b. 96,754 mtrs of processed fabrics valued at Rs. 62,46,887/- was seized as no duty paying documents were available for the said fabrics. c. Fabrics of M/s Kanchan Wooltex valued at Rs. 1,21,0841/- and fabrics valued at Rs. 9,324/- were seized from transporters. iii. During investigation Revenue (DGCEI) recorded statements of various connected persons. For the goods seized, separate SCNs ( Show Cause Notices) were issued, which were adjudicated by Joint Commissioner, Central Excise vide Order-in-Original No.55/2006. However for the present appeals SCN dated 28.9.2007 was issued inter alia for demand of duty of Central Excise of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n retracted till date. The register contains even the registration no. of tempo (conveyance) used for the purpose. The receipts in the Register were also admitted by Sh. Jayesh Bangar and Sh. Sanjay Kabra. Similarly, private Note pad at Sr. No. 31 and 15 contain date wise & quality wise processed fabrics in pieces/thans received from KPPL in godown of KWPL. The contention that private diaries at serial No.31 and 15 appear to be note books kept by different graders to whom processed fabrics in lumps are given for grading is clearly an after thought because Sh. Sanjay Kabra had admitted that these contain details of processed fabrics received from KPPL in godown of KWPL and he has not retracted his statements till date. Sh. Jayesh Bangar even explained the daily receipt entries in private Note pad at Sr. No 31. Further, I find that as many as three persons confirmed that these records pertain to inward and outward movement of processed fabrics. Private file at Sr. No. 16 and 7 shows dispatch of processed fabrics in bales by KWPL. Quantity of 1170480 meters of fabrics listed out in Exhibit-III is not the quantity received by KWPL, as stated by KPPL in their reply, but it is the quanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he evidence in the show cause notice is so convincing that KWPL could not put up anything in their defence reply to counter entries in private records recovered from their godown and from transporters and buyers premises which were corroborated by statements of relevant persons which were never retracted. The role of KPPL in clandestinely clearances of processed fabrics without payment of duty in close coordination with closely knit KWPL stands proved in view of the foregoing and thus, they are liable to penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. KWPL adopted all possible ways for abetting illicit removal of processed fabrics and manipulated their records for this purpose. KPPL and KWPL are part of a group of companies having Directors of the same family. Thus they acquired possession of, were concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling and purchasing of excisable goods which they had reason to believe were liable to confiscation. The contention that penalty is not imposable under Rule 26 as this is corresponding to Section 112(b) of the Customs Act which covers only such persons like transporters, warehouse keepers, seller or purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
