TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in the business of manufacturing lacquered metallised polyester film; falling under chapter 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellant claimed to undertake job-work for many other enterprises one of which was M/s SAS Polymers. M/s SAS Polymers were in the business of slitting metallised polyester film and lacquering them before clearance and procured metallised polyester film for send to the appellant for lacquering. Likewise, at times, they would procure bare polyester film which were sent to job-workers for metallising and thereafter sent to the appellant for lacquering. 2. The finding that M/s SAS Polymers had been floated by Shri SA Shaikh who was a Director in the appellant-company and that during the relev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficate submitted along with the written submissions. They submit that during the said period i.e. June 2002 to Feb. 2003 (the period as appearing in SCN), they have consumed 144 units of electricity and corresponding production during the period is 32521.30 Kg. and as per Chartered Engineer's certificate, the consumption works out to 127.48 units, which is less than actual consumption. I find that the consumption of electricity has been taken for the disputed period i .e. June 2002 to Feb. 2003 ( 9 months) as a whole whereas, if at all, it should have been taken month wise i.e. as per the billing cycle of the Electricity Board. The production from June 2002 to Feb. 2003, month wise and the corresponding electricity consumption, in units....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly was restored in May 2001 of 3 HP load and was upgraded to 20 HP in the month of May 2005. The appellant has no explanation for the irregular pattern of activity and corresponding electricity consumption. In absence of electricity bills to corroborate the claim of the appellants and in view of erratic pattern of so called manufacture and clearance, as claimed by the appellants, it is evident that no activity was carried out in the premises of SAS. Statements recorded by the officers of Preventive wing, Nashik of ex-employees of appellant no. 1 i.e. Shri Anurag Chaudhary, Shri Dharrnendra Sonawane and Shri Praveen Choudhary reveal that these employees prepared challans/invoices in the name of SAS on instructions of appellant no. 2, who sup....