BEEKAYLON SYNTHETICS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeals are at the instance of the Revenue as well as the assessees. E/2943 -45/02 -A and E/2946/02 -A are filed by the Revenue against Order -in -Original No. 25/01, dated 21 -8 -2001. The very same order is under challenge by the assessee in E/2787/01 -A to the extent it is aggrieved by the order. E/3091 -3092/02 -A are appeals filed by the assessees from Orders -in -Original No. 50/01, dated 26 -11 -2001. There is no appeal filed by the Revenue against Order -in -Original No. 50/01. Appeal E/2786/01 is also an appeal at the instance of the assessee directed against Order -in -original No. 26/01, dated 21 -8 -2001. There is no appeal by the Revenue against Order -in -original No. 26/01. E/1711/03 is at the instance of the Revenue challenging Order -in -original No. 28/01, dated 30 -8 -2001. The same order is under challenge at the instance of the assessee in E/2788/01 -A. E/1610/03 is filed by the Revenue challenging Order -in -original No. 29/01, dated 31 -8 -2001. Same order is challenged by the assessee to the extent it is aggrieved by it in Appeal E/2788/01 -A. Since issue involved in these cases is one and the same, we are disposing of these appeals by a common order.

(2.) BEFORE we go into the contentions raised by the parties we may point out that another learned Commissioner had occasion to consider identical issues in a batch of adjudication orders where he has dropped the demand under show cause notice in toto. Appeals filed by the Revenue against those adjudication orders are dismissed by us separately under a common order.

(3.) THE assessees are engaged in the manufacture of PTY Twisted Yarn falling under chapter sub -heading 54.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the basis of intelligence received by the officers of Anti Evasion Directorate that the assessees are indulging in evasion of central excise duty by resorting to undervaluation and clandestine clearances of PTY; that the assessees were clearing PTY from their factory gate at a very low value in the name of fictitious/non -existing firms, while the goods were actually being cleared to godown at Bhiwandi (Maharashtra), Surat (Gujarat) from where they are subsequently being sold through brokers to actual buyers at higher value, search was conducted by the officers in the godowns at Bhiwandi where the PTY cleared from Daman was stored and also the premises of the main transporters and several records were seized. Show cause notices were thereafter issued alleging that the assessees had issued invoices to show that the sale has been effected at the factory gate whereas sales were actually effected from godown, warehouses of the transporters at Bhiwandi and that the sale price shown on the invoice did not reflect the correct assessable value since the buyers name figured in the invoice were fictitious. It was further alleged that the sale between the buyer and the seller was finalised and the payments from actual buyers were received through crossed bearer cheques and not through account payee cheques. Sale realisation shown in the sale ledger is from bogus buyers whose names appear in the invoices and not from actual buyers while delivery from godown was given to actual buyers and not to those shown in the invoices. It was then proposed to compute the value on the basis of the bank statements furnished by the manufacturers to the bank for claiming credit facility.