Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Nandhi Spinning Mills P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Salem on 1 March, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI Appeal No.E/112/2006 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.193/2005-CE (SLM) dated 30.11.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem] Nandhi Spinning Mills P. Ltd. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Respondent
Appearance:
None For the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, (AC) AR For the Respondent CORAM :
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Technical Member Date of hearing / decision : 01.03.2017 FINAL ORDER No.40386/2017 Per D.N. Panda None present for the appellant.
2. The precise dispute before ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was whether there was actual manufacture of the goods cotton cone/cheese yarn made by the appellant when there were evidences on record to show that mode of transport used were false and described vehicles were not registered with the Transport Authority establishing that no raw materials were sent to the job workers for conversion into plain reel yanks and whether there was job working really done and goods were whether cleared in the guise of plain reel yank yarn. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) found that there was plethora of evidence to hold that mode of transport was bogus and fake documents were created to cause prejudice to Revenue. This comes out from paras-6.1 and 6.2 of his order and reproduced below:
> No transaction / conversion was carried out at Nalwar Knitting company [a converter/job worker] and no loading/unloading/freight charges relating to job work undertaken was raised on the appellant no.1 > No labour bills to the appellant no.1 was raised by Balamurugan Doublers [a converter/job worker] during the course of job work undertaken.
> Purchased only cone yarn from appellant no.1 by Peeyelcee Tex Exports, Peeyelyes International, Samsons Exports, who are happened to be buyers manufacturing Cotton Terry Towels, though the invoices of the appellant no.1 mentioned as plain reel hanks, at the instance of appellant no.2. The above facts were corroborated with the notings of purchases of M/s.Shivsankar & Sons.
> In-passes attached to the purchase invoices by Jaiser Spintex (P) Ltd. revealed that they received/purchased only cone/cheese yarn and not hank yarn.
> The hank yarn is not usable as such in the power loom sector and only cone/cheese yarn is usable as such in the power loom sector.
> As per the particulars available in Goods Vehicle Record/Account note book of Driver [Trip sheet] and in-passes raised by the yarn receiving units at Sankaran Kovil found to tally with each other.
> Advance amount said to be paid to the converters units/job workers during 1998-99, 2000-01 was neither reflected in the books of accounts of the appellant no.1 nor in the books of accounts of job workers which shows the maintenance of bogus accounts in order to escape from the clutches of law.
* The vehicle numbers found in the AR3As used for the transportation of 33910 kgs. of yarn for conversion to/from the converting units were bogus and the registration numbers used in the documents were either two wheeler / mopeds or motor car.
* One of the reeling units, M/s.Nalwar Knitting Company, did not raise any labour bill to appellant no.1 and no transactions were carried out at Nalwar Knitting Company and did not pay any loading/unloading/freight charges relating to job work undertaken by them.
* Sri K.Arunachalam, Proprietor of M/s.Balamurugan Doublers stated that he did not raise labour bills to the appellant no.1, as they did not ask for the same.
* The buyers have made voluntary depositions that they received cone/cheese yarn along with invoices in which the description was mentioned as hank yarn.
* No proper explanation offered/no rebuttal by Shri N.Shanthakumar, Director of the appellant no.1, regarding the depositions of the buyers that cheese/cone yarn was supplied under the invoices under the guise of plain reel hanks.
When the appellate Commissioner found that there were falsification of records and appellant has no material to discard the allegation of Revenue, he held that there was clandestine clearance of the goods and there was neither any job working done nor any job worked goods cleared. We are not able to find any material from the grounds of appeal of the appellant to disturb such finding of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly appeal is dismissed.
4. While deciding the above appeal, we are guided by the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE Chandigarh Vs Modern Alloys 2010 (258) ELT 364 (P&H) and the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Alagappa Cements Pvt. Ltd. Vs CEGAT Chennai - 2010 (260) ELT 511 (Mad.). We are also conscious that any grant of relief to the evader shall be a bonus to him following the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of CCE Vs International Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (255) ELT 68 (H.P.).
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Madhu Mohan Damodhar) (D.N. Panda) Technical Member Judicial Member gs 3 Appeal No.E/112/2006