TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 738
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tjit Agro Industries, Accountant of the M/s Jagatjit Agro Industries and Store Incharge admitting clandestine removal of the fact that the same have not been retracted during the entire proceedings? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and clear cut admission by the proprietor of the M/s Jagatjit Agro Industries and other persons, the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in not clubbing the clearances of both the units and ordering recovery of central excise duty as proposed in the show cause notice?" 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in CEA No.2 of 2015 may be noticed. On 10.6.2003, the Central Excise Preventive Officers, Ludhiana searched the factory premises of M/s Jagatjit Agro Industries on the strength of search warrants issued by the competent authority. It was found engaged in manufacturing of boring machines falling under sub head No.8430.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short, "the 1985 Act") and exempted goods of agricultural equipment like reaper etc. It was not registered with the Central Excise department and was availing the benefit of duty exemption applicable to SSI unit in v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lently. The adjudicating authority had rightly clubbed the clearances of both the respondents removed by them in a clandestine manner. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal ought to have relied upon the statements of the proprietors which were not under inducement or threat. Reliance was placed on judgments in Shiv Shakti Steel Tubes vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana, (2008) 221 ELT 166, Shiv Shakti Steel Tubes vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana, (2008) 227 ELT 122 (SC), Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai vs. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Limited, (2011) 270 ELT 643 (SC) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras vs. Systems and Components Pvt. Limited, (2004) 165 ELT 136 (SC). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-assessees while supporting the impugned orders submitted that there was no justification in clubbing the clearances of both the respondents because the same could be done only when the other unit is dummy. In the present case, both the proprietors were separate manufacturers though they might be sharing certain facilities. Even otherwise, if the value shown in the show cause notice was taken as value of clearance, then also, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... machines entered in the register for the period June 2003, 2003-04 and 2002/03 respectively involving the value of Rs. 24,50,000/- and Rs. 3,80,000/- respectively. In the defense, the appellants have specifically emphasized that the investigation officers had recorded the statement of Shri Roji Thomas who has been shown as writer of loose slips and he had also admitted that these machines noted in slip had been manufactured and the version was subsequently confirmed by the respective proprietor of appellants No.1 and appellant No.2. They have specifically argued that there is absolutely no such statement of writer of slips as mentioned in Annexure 1 and appellant No.2. They have specifically argued that there is absolutely no such statement of writer of slips as mentioned in Annexure 1 or by the person shown as contractor shown in Annexure 7. Their contention is that if the value of those machines listed in annexures 1 and 7 respectively is excluded even then value of the sale attributed to both the units does not exceed the duty free limit of Rs. 1 crore in any financial year. That the perusal of Annexure 1 to the show cause notice would reveal that its heading is detailed of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xure I and VIII has been brought on record. Neither there is any evidence on record to the effect that as to whom the said machines after manufacture were cleared. Therefore, thus keeping in view these facts,it is difficult to sustain charge of clandestine removal of goods mentioned in annexures I and VII. Further, the appellants also contested the issue clubbing of both the appellants as the department has clubbed the clearances of appellants M/s Saron Mechnical Works. Bhikhi Road Cheema Mandi i.e. appellant No.2 for calculating the value of the goods in a particular year. Their contention is that without declaring the unit i.e. M/s Saron Mechncial Works, Bhikhi Road Cheema Mandi as declaring unit, how the clearances of both the units are clubbed. It has been argued by the appellants that the unit is not dummy rather the unit is owned by father of the owner of the unit of appellant No.1 and No.2 have been clubbed. I find even Shri Roji Thomas, whose statements relied upon for including the clearances mentioned on slips as per annexures II and III has also stated that he was working for appellant No.2 as Store in charge since July 2001 and that he was also Quality Controller of uni....