COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. SATYAM TECHNOCAST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondents in these two appeals are M/s. Satyam Technocast and M/s. Prince Time Industries. The proceedings against these two 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. Suncon Auto Ltd. nor the details of the assembling work of watch cases being done at M/s. Ravi Tuition Classes were being maintained by these two firms. They were also not maintaining any records on production and stock for their products. The statement of Sh. Harishbhai Thakar, Manager of M/s. Satyam Technocast as well Sh. Someshbhari Satishbhari Malik were also recorded and in these statements they had accepted that the two firms, namely, Alpa Hardware and Alpa Watch Industries were firms having no legal existence and it was Somesh Malik who had floated these two bogus and fake firms. Reply to the show cause notice was given and ultimately Order-in-Original was passed by the Commissioner on various issues which the Commissioner had framed. Issue No. I was whether clearances of excisable goods were made by the noticees on fictitious invoices showing much lower quantities/value than the actual The findings on this issue were based on the statements of the aforesaid two persons accepting the two bogus and dummy firms and on that basis it was concluded that the goods were cleared on fictitious invoices showing lower quantities and value.

(2.) Another relevant issue framed was issue No. IV, namely, whether M/s. Satyam Technocast could not be considered to be the manufacturer of excisable goods which are alleged in the show cause notice to have been manufactured by them

(3.) The defence of M/s. Technocast was that they were only the traders of hardware items. This defence has not again been accepted on the basis of statements of the aforesaid two persons and the finding arrived at by the Commissioner was that M/s. Satyam Technocast was the manufacturer of excisable goods as was stated in the show cause notice.