JANGRA ENGINEERING WORKS, LALIT Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above captioned appeals have been directed against the common Order -in -Original vide which the adjudicating authority had confirmed the duty of Rs. 20,67,735 with equal amount of penalty and interest thereon against the firm appellant No. 1 and further imposed penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 on firm appellant No. 2 and also of this much amount on Bishan Sharma the appellant No. 3, partner of the firm Appellant No. 1 and Lalit Sharma, partner of the firm Appellant No. 2, as detailed therein.

(2.) THE duty has been confirmed on the firm appellant No. 1 M/s. Jangra Engineering Works (in short JEW) for having manufactured and cleared the excisable goods (fire extinguishers) during the period 1.4.96 to 5.5.98 under the invoices of the firm appellant No. 2 M/s. Lalit Engineering Works (in short LEW) at their premises No. 4/1, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, without payment of duty on those goods and availed he benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93 illegally. The penalty of the amount equal to that of duty had been confirmed against them and on their partner appellant No. 3, penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 has been imposed, while on the other firm M/s. LEW and its partner appellant No. 4, the penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 each has been confirmed under Rule 209A of the Rules, by taking into consideration these facts and circumstances (i) the factory premises of the firm M/s. LEW remained sealed during the entire disputed period, (ii) the entire correspondence regarding receipt of raw material and clearances of the goods was made from the address of the firm JEW, (iii) inspection of the goods cleared under the invoices of the firm LEW was made by the purchaser at the address of the firm JEW, and (v) no evidence was brought to prove the actual working of the factory of the firm LEW during the period in dispute.

(3.) THE learned counsel has contended that on the strength of the above referred facts and circumstances though not even proved on record, no presumption that the goods during the period in dispute were manufactured by the firm JEW, could be drawn for want of any other tangible evidence to prove the receipt of excess raw material, excess manufacture of the final products and even excess consumption of electricity and also for want of any other evidence to prove the flow back of money from the firm M/s. JEW to the firm LEW or vice versa. He has also contended that there is ample evidence on record to prove that the firm LEW is an independent unit established in the year 1992 and is manufacturing the goods since then and supplying the same to the Ministry of Defence. According to the counsel, the impugned order deserves to be set aside being based on conjuctures and assumptions without corroboration from the reliable evidence.