R.K. POLYTUBES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order of Commissioner vide which he has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 69,74,004/ - against M/s. R.K. Polytubes along with imposition of penalty of identical amount and confirmation of interest. In addition, he imposed penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on M/s. Fairdeal Agencies who are traders in the goods manufactured by M/s. R.K. Polytubes. As per facts on record M/s. R.K. Polytubes is engaged in the manufacture of PVC pipes and tubes. Their factory was visited by Central Excise officers on 16 -2 -1999, who conducted various checks and verifications. There was some shortages and excesses found in the stock of raw material and as also of their final product. The said shortages and excesses stand dealt by the Revenue by way of another show cause notice and are not the subject matter of present proceedings.

(2.) The officers also further scrutinized the records and resumed one private production register and a file from the factory itself. The said private production register relates to the goods manufactured during the period from 1 -1 -1999 to 16 -2 -1999. The officer also recorded statements of various persons and scrutinized records maintained by M/s. Fairdeal Agencies, a trading firm. It was found that M/s. Fairdeal Agencies have received much more quantum of goods than the quantum manufactured and reflected in the statutory records of M/s. R.K. Polytubes. Infact entries made in the ledger of M/s. Fairdeal Agencies did no revealed that goods received from M/s. R.K. Polytubes stand reflected therein but there were no corresponding entries in the statutory accounts of records of M/s. R.K. Polytubes. Further, the officers made inquiries from the raw materials supplied by M/s. Alpha Organics and M/s. Sigma Chemicals duly entered in their records by way of bills/invoices which was not entered in the appellants records.

(3.) THE Revenue also verified the electricity consumed by the appellant during the entire period from 1997 -1998 and 1998 -1999 and found that there was excess consumption of electricity, thus leading to a charge on the part of the Revenue that appellant have manufactured excess quantum of their final product than what they have reflected in their statutory records. Inasmuch as the electricity consumption during the period from 1 -1 -1999 to 16 -2 -1999 showed by the other manufactures revealed excess production of their goods. Revenue on the same basis entertained a view that the production of the appellants should have been much more.