2019 (2) TMI 565

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ived and subsequent investigation conducted, the department has concluded that the appellants have opened up a dummy name sake unit in the name of M/s. Austin (Smt. Helen Charles D'Silva is the Proprietor of M/s. Ausitn and wife of Shri Charles D'Silva). It was contended by the department that the appellants were removing the goods in the guise of removal for job work; during the investigation both Shri Charles D'Silva and Smt. Helen Charles D'Silva Proprietors of M/s. Aurrick Tools and M/s. Austin have accepted that M/s. Austin had no machinery and where with all to undertake job work like cutting/punching of aluminum sheets. Accordingly, the department has issued a show-cause notice seeking to recover Central Excise duty of Rs. 10,09,082/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le to send goods for job-work under Notification No.83/94-CE dated 11/04/1994 and therefore, the job worker, i.e. the appellants is not liable to pay duty. M/s. Austin had not maintained records on the assumption that it was not required to pay any duty on the goods, which were got manufactured on job work basis. Non-compliance to the Notification No.83/94 is only with technical and procedural lapse. (vi) As M/s. Austin is a small scale unit, the appellants have no duty liability on the job work done for M/s. Austin. (vii) on the issue of limitation, he submitted that demand is time barred, the same was issued on 01/04/2008 and covers a period from 01/04/2002 onwards, which is beyond five years. Therefore, the period 01/04/2002 to 31/03/200....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uch as shearing, slitting and printing but no job work of any sort is carried out or was ever carried out from the premises of M/s. Aurrick Tools. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) further found that non-maintenance of records and non-following of the procedure under Notification No.83/94-CE dated 11/04/1994 is not a mere procedural lapse. M/s. Austin have no premises of their own, no machineries, workers/employees on payroll of M/s. Austin were working for M/s. Aurrick, negligible consumption of electricity. Therefore, we find that M/s. Austin is a dummy name sake unit floated to evade payment of Central Excise Duty. 4.1 We find that as for the statements of concerned, the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) do not require interve....