TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 1383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re not actually eligible, enquiry was conducted to trace the sources of evasion and parties involved therein, so also to assess loss of Revenue made by these parties and recover the same. It was revealed that these manufacturers have suppressed more than 50% of actual quantity/value of the clearances made by them falsely describing sizes of the wires and cables on the invoices and understating weight of such goods on the Lorry Receipts. It was further revealed that 'Paragon' group of manufacturers of wires and cables resorting to the above practice had evaded Central Excise duty. 1.3 Search operation was conducted to the premises of following concerns on 21.2.2002: (1) Paragon Cable Co. (2) Paragon Enterprises (India) (3) Paragon Power Cable ltd. (4) Paragon Cable Industries (P) Ltd. (5) Paragon Cable Corporation (6) Paragon Cable India (7) Roxy Electricals (8) Janata Cable Company (9) Rolex Cable Company 1.4 While making search to the premises of Paragon Cable Co., a partnership of Mrs. Prem Nagpal and Sri S.N. Nagpal at 308/9, Sahahzada Bagh, old Rohtak Raad, Delhi, Sri D.L. Nagpal husband of Mrs. Prem Nagpal who was owning M/s Roxy Electricals at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Branded wires and cables of different specifications valued Rs.3,62,500/- was seized finding to be existing without duty paying documents. Those goods were seized and directed to be released on payment of redemption fine of Rs.1.00 lakh. Proceeding against its partner Sri D.L. Nagpal who is in appeal No. E-313/2005 in Table -2 of this order was also initiated and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on him under Rule 209A and 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2001. 1.12 Search to the premises of Janata Cable Company revealed that the said concern was manufacturer of wire and cables of Paragon brand belonging to Paragon Cable Co., being financially supported by the later. M/s Janata Cable Company was not registered under Central Excise Act, 1944 to manufacture the branded goods. Such fact was admitted by assessee during search. Incriminating documents and records were also recovered in the course of search. 1.13 Search to the premises of M/s Rolex Cable Company revealed that it was financially supported by Paragon Cable Co., to manufacture Paragon brand wires and cable without being registered under central Excise Act, 1944. Such branded goods were cleared by that concern and such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; Total 1,20,463 1,20,463 6. E-320/2005 Paragon Cable Co. - - 13,88,808 13,88,808 7. E-326/2005 Janata Cable Co. - - 15,58,069 15,58,069 8. E-330/2005 Gautam chand Jain - - - 50,000 9. E-328/2005 Metal & Metal electronic Pvt. Ltd. 10,00,000 - - 1,00,000 10 E-329/2005 Kantilat Jain - - - 50,000 2.3 On the basis of seizure of goods in Chennai, residential premises of Metal and Metal in Chennai was searched and certain incriminating documents and papers were recovered. Similarly search to the residential premises of Sri Kantilal Jain, Managing Director of Metals & Metal (Electric) Pvt. Ltd. was made on 21.2.2002 and 3.5.2002 and investigation found questionable materials from that concern also. Similarly search to the premises of Sri S.N. Nagpal, Sri D.L. Nagpal was made and that resulted in recovery of materials showing evasion of duty. 2.4 Seizure of goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re period. Rolex Cable Co. claimed that it manufactured branded goods during the financial year, 2001-02 and Janta Cable Co. claimed that it manufactured branded goods from 1.1.2002 to 29.2.2002. Appellants were of the conception that if at all there arises demand, denying SSI Exemption, duty demand shall be confined to the period of manufacture of branded goods and there should not be any penalty levied. 3.1 On the basis of outcome of investigation and examination of records, documents and papers recovered in the course of search, statements were recorded from various persons in Chennai and Delhi. Revenue proceeded to investigate history of past clearances of goods for the period April 1998 to February 2002 made by the concerns in sl. No. 1 to 7 depicted in Table-1 aforesaid who are in the appeals noted against each. 3.2 When enquiry into the past clearances of different concerns appearing in Table-1 aforesaid revealed that there were difference in weight of the goods in excise invoices and transport documents and following appellants were connected with such practice, they faced charge and penalty as noted against each in Table-2 were imposed as depicted hereunder: TABLE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....volving Central Excise Duty Rs.3,89,738/- during the period from Sep. 2000 to Feb. 2002 was removed these quantities issuing invoices for lesser quantity than what was actually despatched when compared with corresponding LRs issued by M/s Saurasthra Roadways and M/s Prakash Roadlines consigned to the buyers located in Chennai and suppression was done with intent to evade payment of Central Excise Duty leviable on those goods. (iii) M/s Paracon Cable Co., M/s Paragon Cable Co., M/s Paragon Enterprises (India), M/s Paragon Cable Corporation, and M/s Paragon Power Cable Ltd., contravened the provisions of Rule 9(1), 52A, 53, 54, 173F, 173G, of as the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, & 12 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules 2001 read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (iv) Wires and cables of 'paragon' brand were manufactured by the group without payment of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs.2,03,003/-, Rs.2,28,902/-, Rs.5,43,751/- and Rs.13,88,808/- and Rs.3,89,738/- and were cleared clandestinely by M/s Paragon Cable Co., M/s Paracon Cable Co., M/s Paragon Enterprises (India), M/s Paragon Cable Corporation and M/s Paragon Power Cable Ltd., r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Enterprises (India), Sh. Sudhir Nagpal, Shri Sunil Nagpal, Directors of M/s Paragon Power Cable Ltd., Shri Sunil Nagpal, Shri Vipul Nagpal, Smt. Sonia Madan, Smt. Vandu Makkad. Partners in M/s Paragon Cable Coporation concerned in selling, manufacturing, removing the excisable goods in excess quantity made such goods liable for confiscation under the Central Excise Act and Rules as no appropriate Central Excise Duty had been paid on such goods dispatched by them. They also made themselves liable to penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001 read with Section 38A of Central Excise Act, 1944. ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 5.1 Learned Counsel spearing on behalf of aforesaid appellants Challenged various consequences of adjudication submitting as under: (1) Duty of Rs.1,20,463 was demanded by the learned Commissioner in respect of seized goods in Chennai overvaluing the same while in case of the goods covered by invoices, he had demanded duty on the differential value. Such approach was arbitrary. Therefore, duty and penalty demand on this count is liable to be set aside on the ground of incorrect calculation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mposition of such fine was disproportionate to the value of goods seized. Revenue vehemently apposes to such concession prayed. 6.3 In so far as adjudication made in terms of show cause notice dated 2.5.2003 is concerned, on the first count of allegation of quantity difference, learned DR submits that such difference was made deliberately and made to cover up clandestine removal. But learned Counsel submitted that there was arbitrary adjudication made by eye estimate and weight was also estimated baselessly. Revenue vehemently opposed such contention of the appellant submitting that deliberate suppression made by appellants does not at all grant any concession to appellants who had consciously made breach of law and leniency plea of the appellants if permitted to be entertained that shall be an incentive to evaders. 6.4 So far as allegation of use of brand name is concerned Revenue submitted that inquiry revealed use of brand name by Rolex Cable Co. from the day of setting up of their business but not w.e.f. 1.4.2001 and by Janta Cable Co. only from 1.1.2002 as pleaded by them. They were using the brand name. Therefore, in absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary no red....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o evidence adduced except mere pleading. Statements recorded form different persons and evidence on record proved clandestine removal, undervaluation and use of trade mark by paragon group. 7.3 Authorities below have examined every defence advanced by appellants and examined the same in proper perspective. Entire evidence involved in the adjudication were found to be properly evaluated and appreciated. When the appellants failed to establish bonafide and innocence and no involvement in clandestine removal and misdecalration, that could not be ruled out. All the appellants were subjected to scrutiny and adjudication made properly. Therefore, neither the process of adjudication nor the findings made in adjudication can be held to be faulty. Causing of mass scale evasion by appellants was established on record backed by cogent evidence. Therefore adjudication cannot be disturbed. 7.4 Now, the only point that comes for consideration is the quantum of redemption fine imposable on M/s Metal and Metal (Elect.) Pvt. Ltd. and on M/s Roxy Cables. There was duty demand of Rs.1.2 lakhs in respect of seizure of goods in Chennai and M/s Metal and Metal (Elect.) Pvt. Ltd. faced redemption f....