TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry. Mahesh Prasad is non existent. There is no evidence that Shri. Gautam Kushwaha was in any way connected with the manufacturing activity. Thus, it is found that the department has considered Appellant 1, the owner of the premises as the manufacturer of the goods found in the said premises. Evidence available on record to implicate Shri Krishna Kumar as the manufacturer - HELD THAT:- Appellant 1 has made a genuine lease agreement and leased out the property on a monthly rent of Rs.6000/. The department has verified the genuineness of the lease agreement from the Notary and found that the lease agreement executed by him was genuine - there is no material evidence available on record to establish that he is directly involved in the man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar (Appellant1) and Shri Suresh Prasad Sah (Appellant 2) alleging inter alia that the appellant No.1 in connivance with appellant No.2 have evaded Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs.1.38 crores by means of clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods namely unmanufactured tobacco in the premises situated at Fasiatola, Teengachhia, Katihar, without obtaining Central Excise Registration and without following the provisions of Central Excise law. Accordingly Show Cause Notice dated 21.06.2012 was issued to the Appellants which was adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 13.08.2014, wherein the demand amounting to Rs.14,75,833/- has been confirmed and the remaining demand of Rs.1,23,24,167/- has been dropped. A penalty of Rs.14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He could not produce Central Excise Registration Certificate or any other evidence for payment of duty in respect of excisable goods namely unmanufactured tobacco found in the said premises. Accordingly, on a reasonable belief that the goods available therein were kept for clandestine clearance, goods collectively valued at Rs.8,29,400/-, including the 8 FFS packing machines were seized in the presence of Shri Suresh Prasad Sah and two independent witnesses under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, made applicable to the Central Excise Act. 5. In response to Summons dated 27.06.2011, Shri Gautam Kumar Kushwaha appeared before the offices and stated that he had no connection with the factory and he did not know Shri Suresh Prasad Sah. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods seized from the premises. Later, on investigation Shri Mahesh Prasad was found to be non-existent. In his further statement dated 26.04.2011, Shri Suresh Prasad Sah admitted that there was no person in the name of Shri Mahesh Prasad. He has impersonated another person as Mahesh Prasad and introduced him to Shri Krishna Kumar for the purpose of executing the lease agreement of the premises. He produced the same person as Mahesh Prasad before the Notary also. In his statement dated 26.09.2011, Shri. Suresh Prasad admitted that he is the main person involved in the manufacturing activity. He purchased two FFS machines on 26.05.2011, three machines were purchased on 07.06.2011 and another three machines were purchased on 16.06.2011. U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the ownwer of the said premises. 11. Shri Suresh Prasad introduced Shri. Mahesh Prasad to Appellant 1, before executing the lease agreement. Later, when Mahesh Prasad was found to be non existent, he changed his statement and submitted that he has impersonated another person as Mahesh Prasad and introduced him to Shri Krishna Kumar for the purpose of executing the lease agreement of the premises. He produced the same person as Mahesh Prasad before the Notary also. Shri. Suresh Prasad has changed his statement many times. Initially he stated that the proprietor of the factory was Shri Goutam Kumar Kushwaha. He changed his stand and stated that Shri. Mahesh Prasad was the owner of the business carried out in the premises at Fasiatola. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he lease agreement executed by him was genuine. In his statements Appellant 1 has claimed that he is not at all involved in the illegal manufacture and clandestine clearance. We find that there is no material evidence available on record to establish that he is directly involved in the manufacturing activities. There is no evidence that the machines were purchased in his name. There is no evidence that he has purchased raw materials from the market using cash .The goods has not been physically cleared to any customers. In the absence of any such evidence, we hold that Appellant 1 cannot be held as the manufacturer of the goods found in the premises rented out by him. 13. On the day of search, officers have seized certain materials which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
