UREKA POLYMERS LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the impugned order Ld. Commissioner ordered as under:

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of co -extruded Multilayer Film and Lay Flat Tubing falling under Chapter Heading 39.28 and 39.17 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Plastic granules are the principal raw material used in manufacture apart from master batches and packing material. The raw materials are procured from dealers as well as manufacturers.

(3.) THE officers of the Central Excise visited the factory of the appellant on 28 -11 -96. They also visited the premises of M/s. Moon Light Printer and Paper Converter, New Delhi. From the premises of M/s. Moon Light Printer and Paper Converter; 21 rolls of 'Plain Poly Film' weighing 1247 kgs. were seized in the reasonable belief and they were liable to confiscation. Certain records and documents were resumed in the premises of the appellant which were seized. Premises of M/s. Shree Ram Polymers and M/s. Ajanta Goods Carrier were also searched. M/s. Shree Ram Polymers are engaged in trading of plastic granules. M/s. Ajanta Goods Carrier is a transport company. Statements of Shri Sanjay Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Shree Ram Polymers and Manager of M/s. R.K. Traders were recorded. They were subsequently also summoned and their statements were recorded first on 14 -1 -97 and subsequently on 24 -1 -97, 27 -1 -97, 28 -1 -97 and 7 -11 -97. Statement of the owner of M/s. Ajanta Goods Carrier was recorded on 10 -6 -97, 11 -6 -97 and 13 -6 -97. Statements of Shri Devnath Singh, an employee of the appellant company, Shri Arun Kumar Sinha, Shri Subodh Arya were also recorded. Statement of Shri Dinesh Rustagi, M.D. of the appellant Company was recorded on 17 -9 -97 and 14 -1 -98. On a scrutiny of the seized records and the statements indicated that the appellant had manufactured and cleared goods clandestinely without payment of Excise Duty and without cover of invoices from its factory. It was alleged that the appellant had received raw material (plastic dana) with cover of invoices which they did not account for in their records and used the same in the clandestine manufacture of Lay Rat Tubing and Multilayer Film which was also not recorded in the statutory records and were clandestinely removed without payment of Excise Duty. Accordingly, a SCN was issued to the appellant asking them to explain as to why they did not record 2,95,472 kgs. of plastic granules received in their raw material account during the period from 1 -11 -93 to 11 -1 -97; why did they not make correct entries of the goods manufactured in their statutory records; why did they clandestinely removed 2,65,395 kgs. of finished goods and 29,486 kgs. of waste and scrap without determining the duty due thereon and without following the proper procedure; why duty amounting to Rs. 48,11,943 on 2,65,395 kgs. of finished goods and Rs. 76,946.00 on 29,486 kgs. of waste goods should not be demanded from them and why penalty should not be imposed. In reply to the SCN, the appellant submitted that since the allegations of clandestine receipt of the raw -material, clandestine manufacture of the finished goods and clandestine clearance of the finished goods were generally based on the statements of suppliers and transporters of raw -material, on statements of some customers and employees of the company, therefore, the position shall have to be clarified in this respect. It was also contended that for the purpose of arriving at the figures, documents of the third party have been relied upon. They made a number of submissions stating that they had rebutted all the allegations. Ld. Commissioner, however, decided the matter as indicated in the preceding paragraph.