2016 (11) TMI 1227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is not desirable to keep that pending and burden the Tribunal with pendency. Therefore both the appeals are taken up for hearing and disposal with the assistance of Revenue, examining the grounds of appeal filed by appellant. 2. Ld. D.R read out the show cause notice dt. 7.9.98 to bring out the pertinent fact that M/s.Kayathri Exports (in short, M/s.KE) although having a postal address, was benamidar for M/s.Sri Sowdeswari Industries (in short, M/s.SI) and given shelter to M/s.SI for clearance in the name of the former so as to avail SSI benefit by both the units dividing the clearances of M/s.SI. Such factual aspect is vividly clear when Annexure-I to the show cause notice is read. Investigation was conducted to the premises of M/s.KE.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anufacture was carried out in the premises of M/s.KE. Even evidence recovered from M/s.SI revealed the same story as stated above. M/s.SI agreed to work out the liability of both the industries and discharged the same. 5. Revenue says that on the above circumstance, duty demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority on both M/s.KE and M/s.SI.  So far as M/s. SI is concerned, the appellate authority although confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,56,335/-, it reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/- as against proposal in the SCN for imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also against proposal of imposition of penalty under Rule 9 (2), Rule 173Q and Rule 226 of the C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 8.3 Recording of raw material purchase by M/s.KE was false and documents were only fabricated in the name of M/s.KE to prove that it was manufacturer. Material facts appearing in paras-1 to 13 of the SCN show that there was no infrastructure or machinery in the premises of M/s.KE to manufacture the goods. Such fact remained unrebutted. 8.4. The case establishes that M/s.KE was a bubble. That was used as a conduit of M/s.SI to divide clearances to claim SSI benefit by both falsely. M/s.KE was neither a distinct entity nor engaged in manufacturing activity nor also cleared any excisable goods. False records of M/s.KE were maintained in the premises of M/s.SI as is revealed from para-2 of the SCN. Only spurious transactions were recorded i....