Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Krupalu Metals Private Limited vs Rajkot on 31 January, 2024
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad
REGIONAL BENCH-COURT NO. 3
EXCISE Appeal No. 10498 of 2017- DB
(Arising out of OIO-RAJ-EXCUS-000-PR-COM-63-16-17 dated 15/12/2016 passed by
Principle Commissioner Customs, Excise and Service Tax-RAJKOT)
Krupalu Metals Private Limited ........Appellant
Plot No. 4345 Gidc, Phase-iii,
Dared,
Jamnagar, Gujarat
VERSUS
C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot ......Respondent
Central Excise Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road...Income Tax Office, Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 WITH
(i) EXCISE Appeal No. 10489 of 2017- DB (Harshadbhai Pranlal Borsaniya)
(ii) EXCISE Appeal No. 10490 of 2017- DB (Vishalkumar Hasmukhbhai Rabadiya)
(iii) EXCISE Appeal No. 10491 of 2017- DB (Malay Rajendra Mehta)
(iv) EXCISE Appeal No. 10492 of 2017- DB (Shri Jagdishbhai Parshottambhai Katariya)
(v) EXCISE Appeal No. 10493 of 2017- DB (Sunilbhai Durgeshbhai Bhatt)
(vi) EXCISE Appeal No. 10494 of 2017- DB (Shri Vipul Dhirajlal Rupapara)
(vii) EXCISE Appeal No. 10495 of 2017- DB (Jenul Abedin Ebrahim Darjada)
(viii) EXCISE Appeal No. 10496 of 2017- DB (Shri Rasiklal Kalyanjibhai Bhut)
(ix) EXCISE Appeal No. 10497 of 2017- DB (Rasiklal Parshottambhai Kateshiya) APPEARANCE:
Shri Saurabh Dixit Advocate for the Appellant Shri Ashok Thanvi, Assistant Commissioner(AR), for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. RAJU Final Order No.10281-10290/2024 DATE OF HEARING: 20.12.2023 DATE OF DECISION: 31.01.2024 RAMESH NAIR Appeals are filed against common order No. RAJ-EXCUS- 000-PR.COM- 63-16-17 Dated 15.12.2016 by the appellant, as detailed below:-
Sr Appeal Period SCN OIO No. & Amount of Duty
. No. Involve Date date
N d
o.
2|Page E/10489-10498/2017-DB
1 E/10498/ 01.12.20 30.03.2 RAJ-EXCUS- Rs. 3,20,30,376/- along
2017 13 to 016 000-PR.COM- with interest and penalty
31.12.20 63-16-17 of Rs. 3,20,30,376/-
15 Dated. under Section 11AC of
15.12.2016 CEX Act, 1994.
Other Appellants
S Appeal Amt. of
R. No. penalty
N Under Appellants/individuals
o Rule
26(1) of
CEX
Rules,
2002.
2 E/10492/2 Rs.80,00, Shri Jagdishbhai Parshottambhai Katariya
017 000/- (Managing Director of M/s. Krupalu Metals Pvt.
Ltd):-
3 E/10496/2 Rs.4,25,0 Shri Rasiklal Kalyanjibhai Bhut (Partner of M/s.
017 00/- Deepak Products)
4 E/10491/2 Rs.2,70,0 Shri Malay Rajendra Mehta (Partner of M/s.
017 00/- Arihant Corporation)
5 E/10493/2 Rs.11,00 Shri Sunilbhai Durgeshbhai Bhatt (Partner of M/s.
017 0/- Shree Ambica Industries)
6 E/10494/2 Rs.85,00 Shri Vipul Dhirajlal Rupapara (Partner of
017 0/- M/s.Alakh Metal Product)
7 E/10489/2 Rs1,75,0 Shri Harshadbhai Pranlal Borsaniya (Proprietor of
017 00/- M/s. Alloy Components)
8 E/10497/2 Rs.2,00,0 Shri Rasikbhai Parshotambhai Kateshiya
017 00/- (Proprietor of M/s.Vadachi Products)
9 E/10495/2 Rs.1,80,0 Shri Jenul Abedin Ebrahim Darjada (Authorized
017 00/-. Person of M/s. Sanjari Press Products)
1 E/10490/2 Rs.1,55,0 Shri Vishalkumar Hasmukhbhai Rabadiya
0 017 00/- (Proprietor of M/s. M.K.Enterprise)
1.2 Brief facts of case are that the M/s. Krupalu Metals Pvt. Ltd was
engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture and sale of brass/copper patti and sheets. They were registered with Central Excise department and paying
3|Page E/10489-10498/2017-DB appropriate central excise duty on removal thereof. Investigation was carried by Central excise department and it was alleged that the M/s. Krupalu Metals Pvt. Ltd have manufactured and cleared brass/copper sheets (6,30,298.480 kgs valued at Rs.25,91,45,436/-) in clandestine manner, in cash, without recording the same in their records. Whole investigation is based on alleged entries in private records and statements of certain persons.
2. Mr. Saurabh Dixit, Ld. Counsel for appellants submitted that the entire case is booked solely based upon private records purportedly containing details of clandestine sale/removal of finished goods and statements of 8 alleged purchasers/buyers of said goods. He further submits that investigation is restricted only to 8 alleged purchasers (co-Appellants herein) against whom it is alleged to have purchased goods. He submits that department has not even investigated other alleged purchasers/buyers of balance quantity of finished goods.
2.1 He submits that case for clandestine removal cannot be made out on the basis of mere private records or statements of co-accused, especially that to allege clandestine production and sale of such huge quantity of 6,30,298.480 kgs finished goods. In absence of any cogent evidence for clandestine removal, including by way of consumption of excess raw material, power consumption, identifying buyers, showing transportation in clandestine manner, receipt of proceeds etc, no duty demand can be raised on mere conjectures and surmises.
2.2 He relies upon decision in case of Vishva Traders Pvt. Ltd. & others v. CCE, Vadodara reported in 2012 (278) ELT 0362 (Tri. - Ahmd.) that unless clandestine manufacturing is brought on record, there cannot be any allegation of clandestine clearances, uncorroborated with evidences. Similar view was taken in the case of 2015 (322) ELT 542 (Tri.-Del) Albright Steel Industries ltd., Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur reported at 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All). Continental Cement Company versus Union of India, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad decided that; para 12 "Clandestine removal is a serious charge against the manufacturer, which is required to be discharged by the Revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence .On careful examination, it is found that with regard to alleged removals, the department has not investigated the following aspects:-
4|Page E/10489-10498/2017-DB "To find out the excess production details.
To find out whether the excess raw materials have been purchased. To find out the dispatch particulars from the regular transporters. To find out the realization of sale proceeds.
To find out finished product receipt details from regular dealers/buyers. To find out the excess power consumptions"
2.3 He further submits that it is a settled legal position, substantial electricity consumption and other raw material consumption will have to be shown, which is not at all established by revenue. As such, the demand based on such records is unsubstantiated and cannot bring home the serious charge of clandestine removal as such.
2.4 He submits that the proceedings are vague inasmuch as it alleges that the entries of clandestine removal were made in such registers by either Shri. Dama Amit Mudhibhai (Supervisor) or Shri. Sanghani Rajnikant Chhaganbhhai (Supervisor) or the two directors. Since the authorship is kept open ended in such manner, the authenticity of the private registers is as such not properly established.
2.5 He relies decision in case of Gautam Ferrow Alloys 2021(377) ELT 776(Tri-Kolkata) wherein it was held that when Department alleging undervaluation of goods on basis of private diary seized from assessee's Head Office, written by Managing Director showing higher sales realization and his statement recorded during investigation, In absence of any evidence of flow back of funds over and above invoice price from buyers to assessee or receipt of prime quality goods in guise of inferior quality by said buyers, charge of undervaluation of goods for a period of more than three years solely based on entries made in private diary that too for a period of eight months only, not sustainable particularly when statement of Director who is author of such diary not tested as per provisions of Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944. This view was also upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court as reported at 2022 (380) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.). The said ratio applies to the present case on all fours and hence, the demand in the present case too deserves to be dropped/vacated. Further reliance is placed on following decisions:-
A.R. Shanmugasundaram 2016 (333) E.L.T. 158 (Tri. - Chennai) A.R. Shanmugasundaram 2022 (380) E.L.T. 151 (Mad.) Hi Tech Abrasives Ltd. 2018 (362) E.L.T. 961 (Chhattisgarh)
5|Page E/10489-10498/2017-DB J.P. Iscon P. Ltd. 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 64 (Tri. - Ahmd.) 2.6 He further argues that the distance between "may be true" and "must be true" is long and is required to be covered by legal and unimpeachable evidences, which the subject SCN grossly fails to prove. We crave leave to refer to and rely upon the following decisions in support of this contention:
IOC Ltd. V/s. CCE 2003(158) ELT 49(Tri-Kolkata) IPCL V/s. CCE, Vadodara 2005(181) ELT 99 (Tri-Mumbai) Kwality Tube Industries 2008(232) ELT 813(Tri-Ahmd) CCE V/s. Kwality Tube Industries 2009(240) ELT 20(Guj) Good Kare Medico P. Ltd. 2019 (366) E.L.T. 133 (Tri. - All.) Mahavir Metal Industries 2014 (313) E.L.T. 581 (Tri. - Ahmd) 2.7 He further submits that the alleged minor shortage of 1934 Kgs of copper Sheet and 617 kgs. is bald allegation as Panchnama dated 05.01.2015 does not even mention as to how this shortage was derived.
There was no record of method of stock taking or weighment of the finished goods during panchnama proceedings. He submits that physical inspection cannot be used to determine any shortage of stock. Further, the miniscule shortage of 1934 kgs in brass sheet and 617 kgs of copper sheet can also occur due to weighment error. It is further submitted that in this regards, revenue has adopted self-contradictory approach inasmuch as on one hand, it is alleged that the Appellant used to procure scrap in cash, without entering in records, produce finished goods and sell the same in cash, without entering in records. The Director was made to admit, in forcible manner, that the alleged shortage of physical stock found was cleared by them in clandestine manner. When such clandestine removal was invariably such where the stock was never entered in physical record at all, in such circumstances, there would never be any physical stock shortage compared to statutory records at all. This itself shows that the revenue has created merely a concocted theory to justify demand of duty, without any cogent evidence as such. These goods are not necessarily presumed to be clandestinely removed.
2.8 He further submits that statements of Shri. Dama Amit Mudhibhai (Supervisor) and Shri. Sanghani Rajnikant Chhaganbhhai (Supervisor) cannot be relied upon in the present case because Firstly, Shri. Dama Amit was only looking after the activities since last four months prior to the date of investigation as per his own statement. Similarly, Shri.Sanghani Rajnikant
6|Page E/10489-10498/2017-DB Chhaganbhhai (Supervisor) was preparing challan book only for last two years. Their statements cannot be generalised to cover the past period at all. It is also not understood that how he alongwith Shri. Sanghani Rajnikant (another Supervisor) and vice versa, were both entering the details in the private registers simultaneously, which also shows that this is an attempt on part of lower authority to simply implicate the Appellant without any basis. Also, it is not within their purview to raise excise invoice and he could not have had any idea on whether the sale challan book he purportedly maintained was for clandestine removal or genuine removal at all. Nowhere has he deposed that he was instructed to clear any goods in clandestine manner to evade duty at all. The committed version obtained from him, is without any basis as such. Similarly, to say that the scrap was procured in clandestine manner on cash payment basis is also without any basis and a mere conjecture and the committed statements obtained on these lines clearly appear to be dictated statements and therefore cannot be accepted as valid evidence. The employees were under threat of arrest and as a result, could not file any retraction for the wrongful version obtained from them in the statement, by the investigating officers.
2.9 He further submits that Statement of Shri. Jagdish Katariya i.e. Director of appellant company cannot be relied upon because the same was obtained under coercion and duress and otherwise, mere statement is not sufficient to bring home such serious charges of clandestine removal. Also, the Director was arrested and under a disturbed state of mind and non retraction of the statement is per se not fatal or does not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt at all. Also, it was conveniently recorded in his statement that either him or his other director or anyone present in factory used to enter details of clandestine transaction in the private records, which is rather vague. No entries are identified as being made by any specific person as such and the entire manner in which the evidences are created by investigating officers, raises serious suspicion regarding reliability of the same. The Director was also arrested and under great pressure to admit to the version which was far from truth and such uncorroborated statement as such cannot be relied upon at all in the present proceedings. The issue is otherwise covered in favour of the Appellant vide the above decisions.
2.10 He submits that statements of 8 alleged buyers cannot be relied upon because on the face of it the statements of the alleged buyers are recorded almost in cyclostyle identical manner, and were pre-dictated as such. The issue is well covered vide various case laws that such cyclostyled pre-
7|Page E/10489-10498/2017-DB dictated statements cannot be relied upon. Also, it is inconceivable that such huge quantity of Finished goods were clandestinely cleared and not a single transport evidence is on record. While most buyers were made to say that they arranged own vehicle to pick up the goods, there is no evidence to this effect as well that they had own vehicles or had arranged for vehicle from outside and no vehicle/transporter is also identified for this purpose. Each lot shown to be supplied clandestinely cannot be simply carried in small vehicles such as Chhakda as well and hence, the entire concocted theory on part of the revenue is totally baseless. No payment proof was brought on record. To whom the buyers eventually sold the goods / how they consumed the goods in own production is also not shown. If they did consume the goods in own production, whether duty was paid on such finished goods, is also not shown. This clearly shows that the entire case booked is on pure conjectures and surmises as well as on forcible committed statements obtained by investigating officers in the matter. Also, statement of co- accused per se is not a solid evidence, but merely an assurance to the court, if anything. The same is not sufficient to bring home serious charge of clandestine clearance. He rely upon the following decisions in support of this contention:-
Shakil Ahmed Khan 2019 (366) E.L.T. 634 (All)
Gobinda Das 2023 (385) E.L.T. 722 (Tri. - Kolkata)
Shri Krishna Industries 2020(372) ELT 121(Tri-Ahmd)
2.11. He further submits that statement of scrap vendor Shri. Arjun Katarmal cannot be relied upon because investigation has not revealed that whether the entire scrap was procured by the Appellant exclusively from Shri. Arjun Katarmal or otherwise. One stray small supplier identified and made to state that he had supplied scrap in cash to the Appellant cannot bring home the serious charges of such substantial quantity of finished goods alleged to have been clandestinely produced and cleared. He further submits that there is no proof that the scrap allegedly supplied by him was not scrap sheets or patti of brass and copper as well. These are the goods alleged to have been cleared by the Appellant to the above eight buyers. In other words, even if one assumes that the Appellant did procure in cash some scrap / seconds of patti/sheets of brass and copper and sold it to the buyers for their own use, especially in light of the fact that there is no proof of any excess power consumption and/or other raw materials / consumables being used in excess to achieve such huge clandestine production in the factory.
8|Page E/10489-10498/2017-DB 2.12 He further submits that the investigation is silent regarding the wastage / consumption loss since the concocted theory is that the Appellant procured scrap, processed it and then obtained brass and copper patti/sheets. This surely would require astronomically higher quantum of scrap, which is not shown to have been procured as well, much less from Shri. Arjun Katarmal. He was simply shown some working and asked to confirm if he had supplied scrap in such manner to the Appellant, which he was made to affirm. This however does not advance the case of the revenue any further.
2.13 He further submits that the Panchnama drawn is also highly questionable since the manner of drawing it shows that it was as such prepared at Central Excise office at Rajkot itself where Panch witnesses remained present. The Panchnama is drawn by stating that it was signed on 5.1.15 which states that the proceedings concluded on 6.1.15, which per se shows gross irregularities therein. The Appellant also wishes to point out that the Panchnama quantified alleged clandestine removal value based on private records as Rs.22.58 crores whereas the eventual demand is based on clandestine removal income of Rs.25.91 crore. Such questionable Panchnama and documents purportedly recovered thereunder cannot be relied upon. The Appellant craves leave to refer to and rely upon the following decisions in this regard:-
M/s Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi reported in 2013 (290) ELT 0545 (Tri. - Del.) Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad versus Mukesh Industries ltd. reported in 2009 (235) ELT 527 ( Tri.- Ahmd.) 2.14 He submits that all such instances clearly show that the revenue has not discharged its onus of proving clandestine procurement and production and eventual clearance of finished goods, without a reasonable doubt. The demand therefore must be quashed and set aside. All penal action also must be vacated accordingly.
2.15 He further submits that demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 43, 98, 397/- on 95 417.490 kg. of goods manufactured on job work basis, valued at Rs. 3,55,85,734/- is not sustainable. There is no dispute that the Appellant has also procured/received the raw materials from different principal manufacturer/ trader, for manufacture of goods on job work basis.
It is evident from the statement dated 16.02.2016, Shri Jagdishbhai P. Katariya, Director of Appellant, that their company have also received the
9|Page E/10489-10498/2017-DB raw materials for manufacturing of Brass Sheets or Copper Sheets on job work basis. Purchaser clearly stated regarding getting the goods manufactured on job work basis from Appellant. Reference may be made to statement dated 16.02.2016 of Shri Harshadbhai Pranlal Bosamiya Prop. of M/s Alloy Corporation, Jamnagar Further, Shri Jagdishbhai P Katariya Director in the Appellant had also stated that entry of job work were not mentioned in their official records because they have not followed the procedure prescribed in Notification No. 214/89-CE. However, they have charged only job work charges from their clients. Further, it is also a matter of fact that the principal manufacturer i.e. M/s Alloy Corporation, Jamnagar is SSI unit and availing benefits of Notification No. 08/2003-CE, dated 01.03.2003 and therefore the liability of Central Excise duty on goods manufactured under job work was not under the Appellant. In this regard from Annexure/ work sheet enclosed with the statement it is clearly seen that in remark column, in some cases such as Sr. No. 04,09,10,16,50, 54,59,61,63,69,70 and 72 mentioned as ' Job work'. Thus the department too has no doubt regarding job work carried out by the Appellant but allegation is that they have not followed the procedure. Only on the basis of not following the prescribed procedure the benefit cannot be denied and duty cannot be demanded on goods cleared under job work. He rely upon the following case laws:-
Inar Profiles vs. Commissioner of C.Ex Vishakhapatnam-II- 2014 (310) ELT 200 (Tri.- Bang) Suvikram Plastex versus CCE-2008 (225) ELT 282 ( CESTAT Affan Shoes versus CCE - 2000 ( 122) ELT 868 ( CESTAT) Moon Chemicals versus CCE - 2007 (215) ELT 434
3. Shri Ashok Thanvi, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) for department relied upon observations and findings made by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order.
4. Heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that the show cause notices was issued alleging clandestine removal of finished goods and on this account demand of central excise duty amounting to Rs.
3,20,30,376/- has been raised. Such demand is based mainly upon private records of appellant and the statements of few buyers of the goods who have allegedly purchased goods which is very less when compare to total allegedly clandestine cleared quantity being valued at Rs. 25,91,45,436/-. Department has not even investigated other purchasers/buyers of alleged balance quantity of clandestinely cleared goods. However, in any case, we 10 | P a g e E/10489-10498/2017-DB find that except the statements of few buyers no evidence has been put on record. The evidence in the form of details of cash receipts from alleged buyers, any document proving cash transaction has not been brought on record. We also find from the statement of alleged buyers that the statements were cyclostyle. During investigation no evidence of any unaccounted money having been received by the appellant from any of the buyers was found. In fact investigation was not conducted at factory premises of buyers. Neither there was any entry in their private records showing any unaccounted payment made by them to the appellant. No evidence at all from the buyers located outside Gujarat to whom the goods was sold by the appellant has been produced. The record and the statement of the buyers are also inconclusive and not admissible as evidence and these persons were also in the nature of co-accused. No instance of any money having been received through any agencies have been cited in the show cause notice. Admittedly no evidence of the appellant having received the huge amount in unaccounted manner from buyers to whom goods was sold was found. Not a single instance of cash receipt at appellant's end is on record. In such case when the allegation is based upon the statements of buyers which is not supported by even a single evidence, we are of the view that the demand does not sustain. It is also a matter of fact that disproportionate and unaccounted receipt and consumption of the basic raw materials required for manufacturing alleged huge quantity of unaccounted finished goods. It is a fact that it requires tangible proof of unauthorized payment for procuring such unaccounted raw material. It is evident from the fact that cogent evidence of disproportionate power consumption, capacity utilization and labour employed, or any cogent evidence of clandestine manufacture of unaccounted quantity alleged as clandestinely removed were not produced by the department. It is evident that unaccounted production in the factory of the Appellant has not been established and therefore the case of clandestine clearance of goods by the Appellant does not stand.
4.1. In case of Ruby Chlorates (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Tricky - 2006 (204) ELT 0607 (Tri.-Chennai), it has been held that;-
"22. In a case of clandestine removal the Department should produce positive evidence to establish the same. In the absence of corroborative evidence, a finding cannot be based on the contents of loose chits of uncertain authorship. Department has not produced evidence of use of inputs to prove that there was manufacture of unaccounted finishedproduct...."
11 | P a g e E/10489-10498/2017-DB 4.2 In case of Vishva Traders Pvt. Ltd. & others v. CCE, Vadodara reported in 2012 (278) ELT 0362 (Tri. - Ahmd.), it is held that unless clandestine manufacturing is brought on record, there cannot be any allegation of clandestine clearances, uncorroborated with evidences.
4.3 The department has also not initiated inquiry for transportation of such an alleged huge quantity of goods i.e. 620198.480 kgs. of finished goods to different customers. Many of the buyers of the finished goods are from out of city and even out of state of Gujarat.
4.4. It is evident from the statements of Shri Rasiklal Kalayanjibhai Bhatt Prop. of Deepak Products, Shri Malay Rejendra Mehta, Partner of M/s Arihant Corporation, Jamnagar and Shri Sunil Durgeshbhai Bhatt partner of M/s Shri Ambica Industries, Jamnagar, Statement of Shri Vipul Dhirajlal Rupapara, Partner of M/s Alakh Metal Product, Jamnagar recorded on 16.02.2016, Statement of Shri Harshadbhai Pranlal Borsaniya, Proprietor of M/s Alloy Components, Jamnagar recorded on 16.02.2016, Shri Rasikbhai Parshotambhai Kateshiya, Prop. of M/s Vadachi Products, Jamnagar recorded on 23.03.2016, Shri Jenul Abedin Ebrahim Darjada Authorised Person of M/s Sanjari Press Prdocuts, Jamnagar recorded on 23.03.2016 and Shri Vishalkumar Hasmukhbhai Rabadiya, Proporitor of M/s M.K.Enterprise, Jamnagar recorded on 28.03.2016 that questions and answers are in the same pattern. In the statements the space, comma, full stop, paragraph and alignment of page setting as well as formation of tables in which question and answer were framed and fonts are same. At some place only names, value and quantity were changed. Therefore these statements cannot be said as voluntarily stated and therefore cannot be relied. In case of M/s Ambica Organics versus Commissioner of C.Ex. & Cus. Surat-I reported in 2016 (334) ELT 97 (Tri.-Ahmd) wherein it is held that pre-drafted statements in computer are involuntarily. The said decision was further affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, reported in 2016 (334) E.L.T. A67 (Guj.).
4.5 The allegation of minor shortage of 1934 Kgs of copper sheet and 617 kgs. brass sheets is also not supported by any evidence as Panchnama dated 05.01.2015 does not record any mode of stock taking or weighment of the finished goods during panchnama proceedings. Visual inspection is not sufficient to allege shortage of stock. In any case, the miniscule shortage of 1934 kgs in brass sheet and 617 kgs of copper sheet can occur due to weighment errors. In any case, no investigation is carried out in respect of 12 | P a g e E/10489-10498/2017-DB said quantity to allege clandestine clearance of goods. Thus such allegation of clandestine clearance of goods based merely on above shortage of stock is not sustainable.
4.6 Demand of excise duty amounting to Rs. 43,98,397/- as shown under Annexure A-2 to the Show Cause Notice, is not sustainable because it is evident on record that appellant has manufactured the goods on job work basis. Only based on not following the prescribed procedure prescribed in Notification No. 214/89-CE. The benefit cannot be denied. Reliance may be made in following decisions in this regards:-
Inar Profiles vs. Commissioner of C.Ex Vishakhapatnam-II- 2014 (310) ELT 200 (Tri.- Bang) Suvikram Plastex versus CCE-2008 (225) ELT 282 ( CESTAT Affan Shoes versus CCE - 2000 ( 122) ELT 868 ( CESTAT) Moon Chemicals versus CCE - 2007 (215) ELT 434
5. Thus in view of our above observation and findings, we hold that the demands and penalties made against the appellants is not sustainable and accordingly the impugned order is set aside. The appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.
(Pronounced in the open court on 31.01.2024) (RAMESH NAIR) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (RAJU) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Raksha