Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Twenty First Century Printers Ltd., ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 8 October, 2003
ORDER Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. These appeals against the Commissioner order-in-original passed are being disposed off by this order.
2. The Commissioner found that M/s. Twenty First Century Printers Ltd. (herein after referred to as TCPL) had manufactured and cleared certain excisable goods, though claimed to have been manufactured as production of and in the premises of M/s. Accura Form Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as AFPL) which was a non-existent firm without any machinery installed in their alleged premises. There was connivance between TCPL with AFPL, with an intimation to mislead the Central Excise Department and thus evade payment of Central Excise duty on such claim.
3. After hearing both sides and considering the material on record, it is found-
a) TCPL has premises situated at 18-22 Government Industrial Estate, Masat, Silvassa where they were having certain machinery to perform on job work operations necessary to convert paperboards etc. to printed cartons. However, for other incidental processes they had to send the partially processed material to another premises, which belong to AFCL. However, in 1993 they leased out a part of the premises to AFCL, so that there was an optimal operational convenience. AFCL by letter dt. 11.05.1993 intimated this shift after shifting of five machines from its premises at 13-D Government Industrial Estate, Masat, Silvassa to 18-22 Government Industrial Estate, Masat, its newly acquired leased premises with in the factory of TCPL carried out job work for TCPL for which 57F procedure was followed.
b) The Ld. Commissioner ignoring this request/intimation of AFCL, relies upon the search conducted at the erstwhile address of AFPL, to conclude that AFPL could not have manufactured the cartons as their production. In coming to this conclusion he ignores the lease and other agreements entered into by AFPL and TPCL for the machinery use of each other and the facts of 57F movements.
c) When there is no objection raised by Excise Authority with AFPL seeking a shifting, to the premises of TCPL, as submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the appellants, then it was incumbent on the Commissioner to have arrived at a finding about the status of AFPL at its newly shifted premises at 18-22 Government Industrial Estate, Masat, and therefore the Commissioner should have determined whether it was an Independent Registered premises as envisaged under the Central Excise Law or not. Only after arriving on that finding he should have proceeded to determine the liabilities for the production said to have been from this Registered premises. The impugned order, therefore, is required to be set aside and remitted back to re-determine the actual place of manufacture, and the manufacture for the goods on which the duty is being determined. Only thereafter penalties, if any should be determined.
d) Since the matter is being remitted back to re-determine the place of manufacture and the manufacturer of goods, in this case, the other issues on which the other parts of demands and penalties are based can also be re-determined. For that purpose the impugned order is required to be set aside and remitted back for denovo adjudication.
4. In view of the above, the order is set aside and remitted back for denovo adjudication. All issues left open. Appeals disposed off accordingly.
(Pronounced in Court)