TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ming the SSI exemption. An intelligence was collected that the appellant was manipulating the invoices. The manipulation was that the first and the second copy of the invoices were indicating the correct description of the goods cleared. However, in the third and fourth copy of the invoices, the description was changed so as to give the impression that the goods being cleared are exempt from payment of duty. Mainly, the first and second coy of the invoice would indicate cartons while third and fourth copy would indicate folders. In addition to above manipulation, it was also found during the investigation that some of the goods manufactured by the main appellant were shown as if the same are manufactured by M/s. Shital Enterprises and M/s. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....6.2005 which had the seal of the appellant and all the documents were received by one Shri Santosh S. Inarkar on behalf of all the five appellants and the acknowledgement very clearly states that he has received legible copies of all the documents relied upon in the show cause notice. Copy of the acknowledgement was handed over to the counsel for the appellant and was thereafter requested to indicate which are the documents that are required by them. The learned counsel could not elaborate on any document that is required by them. We also note that the appellant in their letter dated 19.7.2005 as also the appeal filed before us, has conveniently ignored the above fact and is only stating that the relied upon documents have not been receive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty, they may also be given the benefit of cenvat credit on the inputs. The learned counsel also submitted sample copies of the products manufactured by them. 4. The learned AR, on the other hand, submitted that cartons, wallets, catch covers are similar in nature and are meant to keep the goods such as pencils, pharmaceutical goods and condoms. Further, there is essentially no difference between the catch covers, cartons or wallets. It is just the nomenclature given by the appellant or their customers. He further stated that the description in the invoices is inserts and it cannot be said that the same are leaflets. 5. We have considered the submission made by both the sides. We have also seen the sample of the goods. We find that the goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Annexures II(B), II(C), II(D) and II(E). These annexures list out description given in the original and duplicate copy of the invoices vis-a-vis given in the triplicate and quadruplicate copy (which were meant for excise department). The appellant is not disputing the fact that the descriptions were manipulated. The statements of the appellants clearly indicate that the appellants were aware that the goods produced by them are dutiable and they have manipulated the description in triplicate and quadruplicate copy to evade payment of excise duty. 5.3 We also find that certain goods as detailed in Annexure II (F) and II(G) were produced by the main appellant. However, the same were shown as if these are manufactured by appellant Nos. 3 &4 v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of leaflet and other items chargeable to excise duty and separate values are not available, duty will be required to be paid on entire value. Another request of the counsel for the appellant was that since they are required to pay duty, they would be entitled to claim the cenvat credit. We find that the appellant has not produced any documents even before this Tribunal so as to indicate that they have the duty paying documents. However, in the interest of justice, we are giving two months' time from today to produce the duty paying documents used in the manufacture of dutiable cartons, wallets, catch covers etc. and correlate the same (with grammage etc.) to their final products. Such documents will be produced before the jurisdiction....