TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 522
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t supplying copies of the relied upon or non relied upon documents and thus rules of natural justice were violated. (iii) In the absence of any wilful suppression of fact or commission of any fraud with intent to evade payment of Central Excise Duty, extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11-A of the Act was not invocable. (iv) The burden to prove the suppression of fact of clandestine manufacture was on the Department which it failed to discharge. (v) The order was delivered by the Tribunal after 11 months of the hearing of the case and thus the order is bad in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318. 3. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments (1989) 40 ELT 276 S.C., para 8, Collector of Central Excise Vs. H.M.M. Ltd. (1995) Supp(3)SCC 322, Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. and others Vs. Commissioners of Customs, Maharashtra (2006) 6 SCC 482, Nestle India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer of the respondent-Department wrote a letter dated 10.1.1990 followed by reminders dated 23.1.1990, 5.3.1990, 27.3.1990, 24.4.1990 and 14.5.1990 requesting the appellants to furnish invoices. Neither invoices were submitted nor any intimation in this regard was given by the appellants. Acting on an intelligence report that the appellants are indulged in suppression of production of goods and clandestine removal thereof under the cover of duplicate set of documents, a team of Central Excise officers of Kanpur visited the manufacturing unit of the appellants on 17.5.1990. During the course of checking goods valued at Rs. 71,502/- were found in excess of the recorded balance and were seized. Certain documents were also recovered under the resumption memo dated 17.5.1990. When the records were asked to be produced, Sri Deepak Agarwal partner and General Power of Attorney holder of the appellants stated that the records were burnt in a fire accident on 20th April 1990 and an FIR was lodged with the concerned police station and intimation to the Central Excise Department was sent under Certificate of Posting on 20th April 1990. On the basis of the evidences available on record, a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed goods received from M/s. Silverline Steel Industries Ltd., the Commissioner has relied upon the Insurance Report according to which goods were damaged beyond use and could not have been resold and further no bill or vouchers for resale of their goods had been submitted by the appellants even if the goods were resold, the figure cannot be taken into record as it does not amount to any additional sale. We also not find any substance in the submission of the learned Advocate that the quantum of excisable goods could not be arrived at from the Balance Sheet. The Balance Sheet is an important document which contains details of the entire year and the figures mentioned therein cannot be simply brushed aside. It is for the appellants, who have prepared the Balance Sheet, to prove how the figures mentioned therein are false. 7. The Commissioner has held that Rohit Enterprises was a dummy unit as the same was started by M/s. Shailja Agarwal, wife of Praveen Agarwal, partner of the appellant, employed as an engineer with U.P. Electricity Board and executed a Joint Power of Attorney in favour of Deepak Agarwal, partner and K.K. Trpathi. Shri K.K. Tripathi, in his statement dated 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants did not comply. On an intelligence report that the appellants are indulging in suppression of production of goods and clandestine removal thereof under the cover of duplicate set of document, a team of Central Excise Officers visited the manufacturing unit of the appellants on 17.5.1990. When they asked Sri Deepak Agarwal, the partner and General Power of Attorney Holder of the appellants to produce the records, it was stated by him that they have no records for the period prior to April 1990 which have burnt in fire accident on 20th April 1990 and the intimation to this effect was sent to the Central Excise Department under Certificate of Posting. The Central Excise Department Officers also inquired about the fire accident and raised doubt about the occurrence of fire accident and burning of Central Excise related records, since no damage was caused to furnitures etc. The Adjudicating Authority required the appellants to produce the records and Books of Accounts but they were not produced on the ground that records were burnt in fire accident. 15. Thus we find that firstly the assessee had not produced invoices etc. despite being demanded by the Central Excise Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed carbon papers from M/s. Ajay traders. To uphold the finding of Adjudicating Authority in this regard, the Tribunal observed that the alleged bills of Ajay Traders are dated 11.3.1990 against the alleged purchase order dated 21.1.990 whereas the alleged consignment notes were dated 28.11.1989, 10.12.1989, 20.12.1989 and 11.2.1990. The Tribunal found that the balance sheet was an important document, figures of which can not be simply brushed aside. The Tribunal also recorded a finding of fact that M/s. Rohit Enterprises was a dummy unit and the clearance shown against its name were the clearance made by the appellants. 18. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the fact finding authorities, as briefly noted above, clearly attracted the proviso to Section 11- A(1) of the Act. Removal of goods in the name of dummy unit and unestablished purchases from one M/s. Ajay Traders for trading purposes were clearly the result of suppression of facts and fraud by the appellants and, therefore, the Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error of law to invoke the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11-A(1) of the Act. 19. The judgements relied by learned....