SAP INDIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 4352/2013: We have heard the counsel for the parties on this application for condonation of 69 days' delay. The appellant has submitted that they did not receive the order-in-original passed by the Tribunal and, therefore, delay is occasioned. In the reply it is stated that as per the information provided by the Tribunal, the impugned order was dispatched by speed post on 26th June, 2012 at the given address.

(2.) The appellant had supplied caps and bags to Sierra Industrial Enterprises (P) Ltd. and Reebok India Ltd. This is undisputed and admitted position. It is correct that at the time of survey, no machinery or raw material was found, but the subsequent conduct of the appellant prevented the Revenue from conducting any further inquiry. Original books of account were not produced and it was claimed that they were lost. FIR was registered by the appellant on 26th September, 1997 i.e. 14 days after the inspection/raid by the Excise Department. The appellant did not produce and give full details of the so-called suppliers. Thus it could not be ascertained whether the said suppliers themselves were manufacturer or the appellant himself was a manufacturer, who had taken help and assistance of third persons to carry out manufacturing activities. The appellant did not even produce the supply contract with Sierra Industrial Enterprises (P) Ltd. and Reebok India Ltd. It is noticeable that the appellant had supplied branded goods worth Rs. 34,74,866/- to the aforesaid two companies. The appellant did not give and furnish the addresses of the suppliers from whom they had obtained the goods except making a vague claim that one Mrs. Khan had made some supplies. Even the address and particulars of Mrs. Khan were not furnished. "The suppliers" were not produced. It is not possible to accept that the appellant did not have details. The appellant, therefore, had concealed facts which were within his personal knowledge. We do not think that the order passed by the Tribunal can be categorized and regarded as perverse. Findings are plausible. The appeal is dismissed.