Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6.6. I find from the statement of Shri. Dilip Shrikrisha Yendole, accountant & authorized signatory of M/s SRC, recorded on 17.2.1995, that he has deposed that he has been appointed as authorized signatory of M/s SRC and he is signing the statutory excise invoices for the said company. Besides he is also doing the book keeping work for M/s UCSSPL, Chinchwad. To a specific question Shri. Yendole has deposed that 'we are pasting the stickers which contains the wordings "Made in India by ULTRAMATIX in technical collaboration with R.C. CONDIZIONATORY-ITALY."

However, investigations were carried by departmental officers in the year 1995. In the Panchanama drawn on 17.2.1995 of the premises of 142/1C near Parmar Industrial Estate, Chinchwad in the presence of two independent Panchas and Shri. Dilip Yendole accountant of M/s UCSSPL it has been clearly mentioned that there is no clear demarcation and area of three units located therein viz. M/s UCSSPL. M/s SRC & M/s ET It is further mentioned in the Panchnama that they could see only big shed, certain components, wires and cables etc. lying on various iron racks and at one corner of the shed there were certain wooden cupboards which were having files and other records. There were no markings/ separations/ partitions showing existence of the three separate units. As also the stickers of M/s UCSSPL were found for air cooled conditioners with label as 'ULTRAMATIX in technical collaboration with R.C. CONDIZIONATORY-ITALY.

4.3.1 Appellants have challenged the findings of fact recorded in the impugned order. However on examination of facts, evidences and statements recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 we observe as follows:

4.3.2 The Appellants' claim that the value of clearance of the two units cannot be clubbed with the clearance of M/s UCSSPL is not sustainable. The case laws they relied upon in support of their claim are not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Here specific 14 clearances shown in the name of two units are in question. There is sufficient evidence suggesting that there was only one manufacturing entity namely M/s UCSSPL. M/s SRC and M/s ET were only used for bifurcating the value of clearances of UCSSPL to remain in the exemption limit. The goods in question are actually manufactured by UCSSPL only as there was free transfer of funds, of labour, of materials, and of machines, there was common manufacturing process, common labour etc. Their registration with Income Tax, Sales Tax Registration (of UCSSPL dtd. 1/4/1996 (pg.256, 257 of appeal book) of SRC on 31/3/95 (pg.258 and 259 of appeal book) and M/s ET on 31/3/1995 (pg.260, 261 of appeal book)] do not alter the fact that the goods were manufactured by UCSSPL. It can be seen that the goods were shown as removed from the premises of M/s ET and M/S SRC under proforma invoices cum gate passes nos. 1 dtd. 12/9/1994, 2 dated 16/9/1994 (pg.113), and 4 dtd. 19/11/1994 of M/s SRC and proforma invoice (cum gate pass) nos. 1 dated 17/9/1994, 2 dated 19/9/1994, 3 dtd. 20/9/1994 and 4 dated 30/12/1994 (pgs.116 to 119) of M/s Excel Technology Corporation and as per the own admission of the Appellants they were neither registered with Sales Tax or Income tax when the goods were shown as removed from the said M/S ET and M/s SRC. Even the claimed partnership was not registered during the said period. Further UCSSPL was having Income Tax registration dtd. 29/2/1991 (pg.262) prior to M/s ET (PAN dated 10/3/1995 page 264) and M/s SRC (PAN dtd. 10/5/1995 page 263) 32 E/995,996,997/2012 4.3.3 It can be seen from the Panchanama drawn on 17/2/1995 at the premises of UCSSPL (page 75), when Shri Yendole was asked to show separate premises for the three factories as per ground plan submitted to Range Superintendent at the time of taking Central Excise Registration, Shri Yendole explained that he was unable to point out the demarcation and area of these three factories. It was found by the panchas that under one big shed certain components, wires and cables were lying on various iron racks and in wooden cupboards files were kept. There was no markings, separations, partitions to show that three different units exists there, there was no different gates for these three factories. Stickers bearing the text "MADE IN INDIA BY ULTRAMATRIX IN TECHNICAL COLLABORATION WITH R.C. CONDIZIONATORY -ITALY" were also found in the premises. Shri Yendole has admitted the panchnama as correct. There was no complaint from the Appellants against the panchanama. The Appellants claim that they were having a different electrical connection is incorrect inasmuch as UCSSPL had no power to sublet the premises. No photograph is annexed to the Appeal memo. Further what is required is a separate electrical bill to show that M/S ET and M/s SRC were having different electrical connections. Common staff at Pune is admitted. No consideration was given for use of machinery. Since all the goods concerned were admittedly manufactured in the premises of M/s UCSSPL using their machinery and employees, M/S UCSSPL are the actual manufacturers of these goods and they have to pay duty thereon.

4.3.9 Such documents which were obtained fraudulently by suppressing the facts cannot be taken as valid defence. It is also pointed out that in the present case the contract against which all the supplies were made was made by the Appellant 1 and the goods were cleared after putting the sticker "MADE IN INDIA BY ULTRAMATRIX IN TECHNICAL COLLABORATION WITH R.C. CONDIZIONATORY -ITALY". This sticker clearly declares that the goods were manufactured by Ultramatrix in technical collaboration with R C Condizionatory -Italy. That being so the claim that these goods were manufactured by someone else 38 E/995,996,997/2012 goes contrary to declaration made by the Appellant to their customers/ while making the supplies.