UNISTAR POLYMERS PVT. LTD. AND Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first appellant is a manufacturer of plastic film sheets and plates. In the impugned order a duty demand of about Rs. 12 lakhs has been confirmed on it mainly on the ground that it had clandestinely produced and removed certain goods without payment of central excise duty. In addition, the order has confirmed the demand for interest on the duty amount. The second appellant is the Director of the first appellant, manufacturing company. A penalty of Rs. 35.000 has been imposed on him. The present appeals are directed against these orders.

(2.) THE duty demand has arisen from shortage of inputs and finished products observed at the time of stock taking at the appellant's premises on 2.4.1999. Even more so, from the fact that appellant was describing the goods under sale differently in different copies of the same invoice. From A perusal of such copies, we find that while the copy presented to the Excise described the goods as waste of low value, the other copies which were sent to the buyers of the goods described the goods as finished products. Most of the duty demands is on account of this.

(3.) WE have perused the records and have heard both sides. Appellant manufacturer's conduct is clearly duplicitous. The Appellant's invoice making is clearly contrary to the elementary principle of faithful account keeping. Needless to say, it violates Central Excise rules 52A, 173G etc. also. The explanation proffered now could have been canvassed with some seriousness and credibility if only it was backed by contemporaneous business accounts in the nature of purchase documents, payment particulars etc. Bereft of these supports, the explanation cannot stand. In the absence of acceptable evidence substantiating the purported transactions, filing of affidavits by purported sellers is only an invitation to lie under oath for inducements. Fellow citizens should be spared this, 3.1 There is also evidence going against the appellant's explanation. The shortages noticed in inputs is clearly suggestive of clandestine production and removal. There is also further evidence suggestive of manufacturing evidence. The adjudication order has relied on the fact that transporters had stated that "GR Book" belonging to the appellant's transport company was fraudulently used by Shri Vipin Gupta (second appellant) in his business to show removal of goods on 1.4.98, while no goods were actually dispatched on 1.4.98 but of the factory premises. In these circumstances, we reject the explanation put forth by the appellant and confirm the finding that goods had been manufactured and cleared clandestinely without payment of duty in the guise of waste.