POLYENE GENERAL INDUS. PVT. LTD Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from Order -in -Original No. 31/91 dated 8.11.1991 confirming duty demand of Rs. 72,982.33 under Rule 9(2) of CE Rules read with proviso to Section 11A(1) of CE Act and imposing penalty of Rs. 5,000/ -.

(2.) APPELLANTS were charged with having manufactured and cleared Windshield Water Tank (with INDRAD monogram) classifiable under chapter subheading 8512.00 and water divider (with PARRY monogram) classifiable under chapter sub -heading 3922.90 manufactured from another unit M/s. Polymoulds Industries, Madras on job work basis and that too with brand name of some other dummy unit who were not eligible for any SSI concession, without taking out a Central Excise Licence and without observing other Central Excise formalities, thereby contravened the provisions of Section 6 of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 read and hence demands were confirmed by the Addl. Commissioner rejecting the plea raised by appellants that they were only supplier of raw materials to other units namely Polymould Industries and the relationship was a contractual one being principal to principal basis. They had pleaded that the other units namely Polymould Industries was not a dummy unit but was in existence and allegation in show cause notice itself alleged existence of the unit. They had submitted that they there was no flow back and there was no allegation of such flow back also in the show cause notice. They had stated that both the units are indendent units and therefore appellants being supplier of raw materials cannot be considered as manufacturer and no demands can be confirmed on them.

(3.) HOWEVER , the Addl. Commissioner rejected the plea on the ground that Polymould Industries were getting labour charges and they were manufacturing and supplying the goods on their invoices with brand name. The Addl. Commissioner has further held that other unit namely Polymould Industries is a dummy unit which existed only because of M/s. Polyene General Industries namely appellants and they were exclusively working for them and do not carry out any other job work for others. The Addl. Commissioner further noted that the partner of M/s. Polymould Industries and Power of Attorney holder for the appellants resided in the same premises. On such premises, the demands have been confirmed.