KURELE CHEMICALS AND ANR. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have filed these appeals against the order -in -original dated 20.6.1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur. In the impugned order, the ld. Collector held that M/s. Kurele Chemicals is a firm actually floated only to evade central excise duty and it is one and the same with M/s. Kurele Industries. Therefore, the ld. Collector clubbed the clearances of both the units for assessment of central excise duty. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that M/s. Kurele Industries is a partnership firm and registered as a small scale unit with the Director of Small Scale Industries and the Factory premises of M/s. Kurele Industries is situated at G -19 Panki Industrial Estate, Kanpur. He submits that M/s. Kurele Chemicals is a separate partnership firm and is engaged in the manufacture of calcium silicate and the factory premises of M/s. Kurele Chemicals is G -22, Panki Industrial Estate, Kanpur. This proves the fact that both the appellants are different firms. He, further, submits that the ld. Collector wrongly held that M/s. Kurele Chemicals has started production in March, 1985. He submits that M/s. Kurele Chemicals has started their unit in 1982. In support of this plea, he relied upon the bills for purchase of plant and machinery and payment made in respect of construction of building of M/s. Kurele Chemicals. He, further, submits that both the firms were submitting their returns independently under the Factories Act. He also submits that both the appellants are maintaining separate sales -tax records and he relied upon the sales -tax assessment orders passed by the authorities in respect of M/s. Kurele Chemicals. Relying on this evidence, ld. counsel submits that this proves that M/s. Kurele Chemicals was in existence and in operation since 1982. He submits that ld. Collector has relied upon the statements of some labourers of M/s. Kurele Chemicals to show that the factory started production in the year 1985. He submits that no such statements were recorded under sec. 14 of the Central Excise Act. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.

(2.) LD . J.D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that at the time of visit by the Central Excise officials, no production records and no record in respect of purchase of raw -material was found in the premises of M/s. Kurele Chemicals. He, further, submits that no such record was even produced before the adjudicating authority. He, further, submits that statements of labourers of M/s. Kurele Chemicals were recorded and these statements were duly supplied to the appellant with the show cause notice, as relied upon documents. He, further, submits that the entire correspondence and maintenance of record in respect of Kurele Chemicals was being done from the office of M/s. Kurele Industries. He, further, submits that some cash memos and vouchers in respect of various building material purchased by M/s. Kurele Chemicals show that this building material was purchased in the year 1985. Therefore, he submits that there is no merit in the contention of the appellant that M/s. Kurele Chemicals has come into existence in the year 1982. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be dismissed.

(3.) IN these appeals, contention of the appellants is that M/s. Kurele Industries and M/s. Kurele Chemicals are two different independent manufacturing units. The contention of the appellant is that M/s. Kurele Chemicals came into existence in the year 1982 whereas the contention of the Revenue is that M/s. Kurele Chemicals came into existence after 1985. The Revenue authorities at the time of visit to the premises of the appellants recorded the statements of labourers working with M/s. Kurele Chemicals, namely, Ram Kishore, Falrarn Singh, Kishan Lal, Girhayete Chaturvedi and Kamlesh was Kumar on 2.4.1985 and all these labourers, in their statements, submitted that they were working with M/s. Kurele Chemicals just a week back and the unit of M/s. Kurele Chemicals had started just a month back. These statements were supplied to the appellants with show cause notice as relied upon documents.