TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (1) TMI 160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty to the tune of Rs. 1,39,608/- and a penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. 2. The main question for consideration in this appeal relates to a question of fact, that is, whether the appellants had manufactured two items namely, `dipitex' and `dipicol', both falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 15A during the period 10-1-1983 to 2-4-1983. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of information collected by the deptt., a show cause notice was issued to the appellants on 6-4-1984 demanding excise duty of Rs. 1,39,608/- for the year 1982-83 on their production of `dipitex V.P.' and `dipicol'. The appellants were manufacturers of the said items, among others, during the period 1982-83 and 1983-84. They were also claiming exempt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lector had given the following findings : The appellants had during 1982-83 and 1983-84 produced the two items referred to above. In January 1983 after reaching clearances up to a limit of 7.5 lacs of rupees they had simultaneously shown Dipanki Corpn. as the manufacturers of the same goods and cleared them. The Additional Collector had held that the transactions of renting out a part of the premises to the Dipanki Corpn. and selling of certain machinery and other items were just pre-planed action on the part of the appellants with a view to availing of exemption under Notification No. 80/80 whereas in fact the appellants were the real manufacturers of the products. He found that there were contradiction in the statements given by Mr. P.S. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers belonging to the Corpn. for the period January 1983 to March, 1983, it was found that the Corpn. had engaged two workers on daily wages. The claim that the Corpn. had engaged more workers on daily wages was not supported by any vouchers as regards their payment. He also found that the Corpn. could not have manufactured the quantity of the products cleared in their name with the number of workers shown in their records. Further, it also appeared from the records relating to production maintained by the appellants that out of 72 days in January-March, 1983, the appellants had shown the production of goods other than Tariff Item 15A items for 26 days only. This would show that the production of Tariff Item 15A items was actually carried ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly. Further, it was also highly improbable that the Corpn. could have achieved the production of 35,700 kgs. with the help of only 2 workers. 6. In the Appeal filed before us, the appellants have based arguments mainly on legal grounds and have not brought any evidence to contradict the factual findings recorded in the impugned order. In Paragraph (g) of the statement of facts, the appellants had stated : "Shri D.S. Parik had also deposed that the Corpn. had started manufacturing activity in the month of January 1983 and discontinued the same in the month of May 1983 and that the discrepancy which was observed by the Central Excise officers with respect to raw material was mainly because of the fact that the said raw materials were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailure on the part of the manufacturer would not amount to intention to evade payment of duty or that clandestine removal must be proved by the deptt., do not apply to the facts of the present appeal inasmuch as we are satisfied that the Addl. Collector has based his finding on sufficient material to show that there was a deliberate withholding of material information by the appellants as regards the real nature of the transaction between the appellants and the Corpn. The appellants' contention that the impugned order has relied on difference in semantics arising out of the statements of Shri P.S. Parik, Partner in the appellant's firm and Shri D.S. Parik, Partner of the Corpn. relating to the purchases and installation of machinery from th....