1996 (2) TMI 243 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturers found linked to evade tax through dummy units, penalties imposed

SANJAY STEEL CO. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD

SANJAY STEEL CO. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 307 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Whether M/s Shalin Cosmetics, M/s. Zenith Enterprises, and Sanjay Steel Co. are dummy units of M/s. Lakme Ltd.2. Whether they are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 140/83, dated 5-5-1983.3. Whether the demand of duty is hit by limitation.4. Whether penalty can be imposed on the appellants.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether M/s Shalin Cosmetics, M/s. Zenith Enterprises, and Sanjay Steel Co. are dummy units of M/s. Lakme Ltd.:The Tribunal found that M/s. Lakme Ltd. created three units in the names of M/s. Sanjay Steel Co., M/s. Zenith Enterprises, and M/s. Shalin Cosmetics to manufacture Lakme brand talcum powder. The Department alleged that these units were created to avail undue benefits of exemption under Notification No. 140/83. The units were found to be primarily engaged in trading iron and steel products and had no signs of manufacturing activities. Statements from Shri Manish Bhai R. Patel and Shri Jayant Divekar confirmed that the units were manufacturing talcum powder under the guidance and control of M/s. Lakme Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that these three units were dummy units of M/s. Lakme Ltd., created solely to avail the exemption.2. Whether they are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 140/83, dated 5-5-1983:The Tribunal referred to Clause (4) of Notification No. 140/83, which specifies that the benefit does not apply if the aggregate value of clearances exceeds certain limits. The Tribunal held that the three units were not independent manufacturers and were created to manufacture talcum powder for M/s. Lakme Ltd. The units came into existence only to fulfill the order from M/s. Lakme Ltd. and ceased operations afterward. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the benefit under the notification was wrongly availed by the three units.3. Whether the demand of duty is hit by limitation:The learned Counsel argued that the demands were time-barred as they were raised beyond six months. However, the Tribunal observed that the show cause notice was issued on 6-9-1990, covering the period from 26-12-1985 to 16-3-1986. The Tribunal found that there was suppression of material facts as the relationship between the three units and M/s. Lakme Ltd. was not disclosed to the Department. The Tribunal held that this suppression was done with the intention to evade payment of duty, making the entire demand within the permissible period of five years.4. Whether penalty can be imposed on the appellants:The Tribunal noted that the entire arrangement was made by M/s. Lakme Ltd. to avail the benefit of Notification No. 140/83 and to evade duty. The Tribunal found that penalties were justified but reduced the penalties considering the totality of the facts and circumstances. Penalties were reduced from Rs. 20,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- for M/s. Lakme Ltd., from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- each for M/s. Shalin Cosmetics, M/s. Zenith Enterprises, and M/s. Sanjay Steel Co., and from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- for Shri Manish Bhai R. Patel.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the impugned order with modifications in the penalties, confirming that the three units were dummy units of M/s. Lakme Ltd., they wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 140/83, the demand was within the limitation period, and penalties were imposable but reduced.