TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (1) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Excise. 9 To prove the shifting of the factory was duly intimated to the Department 4. Declarations filed with the Range Supdt. of Central Excise. 10-12 To prove bona fides and the quantum of the clearances made by M/s. Laxmi Enterprises. 5. Despatch advice and three enclosures thereto. 13-17 To prove that the consignments seiz­ed at the premises M/s. Arya Central Transport of India Pvt. Ltd., belong­ed to M/s. Laxmi Enterprises and was delivered by them to the trans­port company along with "KLN" slips. 6. Stock Account of M/s. Laxmi Enterprises duly verified by the Deptt. 18-21 To prove that the stock was verified physically by the departmental officers and found in order and these were not lying in the premises of the Petitioners and this checking was done by surprise. 7. Monthly statements by M/s. Laxmi Enterprises submitted to the Deptt. from Feb., 1982 to July, 1982. 22-32 To prove that all the details of manufacture and clearances were being submitted to the Department regularly and nothing was concealed from the Department. 8. Monthly statements submitted by ESGI Mfg. Co. from May, 1982 to Dec., 1982 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llegation may be submitted by a party at the Appellate Tribunal stage." (ii) Delhi High Court decision in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 53 (M/s. Gunvant and Others v. C.C.E. and Others). "Additional evidence - It is well settled that additional evidence is not permissible even in an appeal to enable one of the parties to remove lacunae in presenting its case at the proper stage and to fill in gaps." 4. The ld. Advocate in reply has cited the following case laws on admission of additional evidence :- (i) Madras High Court - 1982 (51) STL 381. (ii) 1967 (63) ITR 32. (iii) 1988 (174) ITR 354 (M/s. Oswal Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.) "The Tribunal can entertain new additional points raised before it for the first time." 5. The additional documents that have been referred to in the Miscellaneous Application have been seen. Documents from Sl. Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 relate to verification of records and stock by the Department and also clearances by M/s. Laxmi Enterprises, these together with documents at Sl. Nos. 7 and 8 will be taken note of at the tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Central Excise Officers debars their invoking Rule 9(2) for raising the demand of duty." (ii) 1984 (15) E.L.T. 451 (T) = 1984 ECR 864 (CEGAT) (M/s. Leather Chemicals & Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise) - "It is a must to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged clandestine production did take place." (c) The Collector in his order in Para 21 states that he draws inference that sealing rubber rings fixed at the ends of the oil filter do not form part of the oil filter cartridges and fixing of rubber rings to the ends of the filter does not amount to manufacture. This is in the context that M/s. Laxmi Enterprises has no means of manufacturing oil filters. Therefore, the Collector has gone by assumptions whereas the statement of Mrs. Gita L.N. Shetty, partner of M/s. Laxmi Enterprises and Executive Director of M/s. K.L.N. Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd. has said that the assembly of the said filters was carried on in the premises of M/s. Laxmi Enterprises and M/s. ESGI Mfg. Co. were separate entities and M/s. K.L.N. Engg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... clearing semi-finished goods which were not excisable - citations in his favour are :- (i) 1981 (8) E.L.T. 366 (G.O.I) in the case of Government of India - Enfield India Ltd. - "Semi-finished goods are not a complete and finished article under CET unlike under CTA". (ii) 1986 (26) E.L.T. 227 (Tribunal) in the case of Collec­tor of Central Excise v. M/s. Reliance Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd. - "Crude and semi-finished goods are not excisable goods". (iii) 1988 (33) E.L.T. 750 (T) = 1983 ECR 1900-D (Cegat-Bombay) in the case of M/s. Shaparia Dock & Steel Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. - "Semi-manufactured goods are not excisable in terms of Section 3 of CESA". (iv) 1988 (37) E.L.T. 179 (A.P.) (M/s. Tungabhadra Machinery & Tools Ltd. v. U.O.I.). - "Duty cannot be levied on semi-finished goods". (v) 1986 (24) E.L.T. 169 (S.C.) (M/s. Union Carbide Ltd. v. UOI & Ors.). "Unfinished goods or goods in crude form are not excisable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xmi Enterprises for fixing the sealing rings and M/s. Laxmi Enterprises had no marking but were only fixing the rubber rings and packing by manual labour prior to disposal by sale. He referred to the reports received from outstation customers and recorded statements from them by the respective Central Excise Officers, recorded that the goods supplied by M/s. K.L.N. Engineering were invoiced by M/s. Laxmi Enterprises and M/s. ESGI Mfg. Co. The filters bore the monogram of "KLN". Therefore, the evidence to prove that the real manufacturer and supplier was M/s. K.L.N. Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd. The statement of Shri B.V. Jaganath dated 1-2-1983 that M/s. Laxmi Enterprises had no oven for processing which was carried out by M/s. K.L.N. Engineering Products and M/s. Laxmi Enterprises only fixed the rubber sealing rings. The order of the Additional Collector in Para 7.1 discloses about the investigation which recorded that the raw materials required for manufacture of oil filter cartridges though invoiced in the name of M/s. Laxmi Enterprises and M/s. ESGI Mfg. Co. were received and stored in the factory premises of M/s. K.L.N. of the two firms M/s. Laxmi Enterprises and M/s. ESGI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....suppression. That the case was based on assumption and presumption on the mere fact of the word inferred appearing in Para 21 of the Collector's Order, was not acceptable as there was a definite conclusion drawn by the Collector on the basis of the facts discussed. It was a clear case of tax evasion with intent to evade payment of duty. He referred to the following case laws for dealing with such cases of evasion :- (i) 1988 (33) E.L.T. 297 (Pat) High Court (M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. U.O.I. and Others). (ii) 1988 (36) E.L.T. 340 (Tribunal) (C.C.E. v. Paper Packing Industries). on clearances by partnership firms - "Partnership firm manufacturing and selling paper packing materials - Another firm set up by partners for same business, inducting their wives playing no role, merely to avail separate exemption, not acceptable as distinct and different". On this analogy the clearances from the partnership firms cannot be taken as separate clear­ances. (iii) 1989 (41) E.L.T. 224 - in the High Court of Bombay (M/s. Swadeshi Dyeing & Bleaching Mills (P) Ltd. v. U.O.I.). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have manufactured the oil filter cartridges with their monogram and sent for despatch through the other two units in order to exclude those clearances from the total value of clearances from the factory of M/s. K.L.N. to be within the exemption limit. This together with the statements of S/Shri B.V. Jaganath, Supervisor, Shri E.D. Mark, Manager, the payments made by M/s. K.L.N. by cheque for freight charges for raw materials received by M/s. Laxmi Enterprises, the investigations concluded with the parties at various places who have received the oil filter cartridges made by M/s. K.L.N. Engineering Products (Pvt.) Ltd. that these are supplied by M/s. ESGI Mfg. Co. will be without excise duty as their units are availing the exemption. Therefore, the Department's case is that the appellant has been manufacturing and clearing the oil filter cartridges without payment of duty. The appellants plea is that the oil filter cartridges are semi-finished goods which are sent to M/s. Laxmi Enterprises and M/s. ESGI Mfg. Co. for further process and cleared by them. They have, however, not been able to clarify the points arising from the investigations, wherein it has been elicited that the good....