TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 991
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lied for Central Excise registration certificate to the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, stating that they intend to manufacture synthetic rubber compound. The required registration certificate was issued to them on 6/8/08. M/s Windsor on the basis of their export performance had been issued a target plus licence in terms of the provisions of foreign trade policy. The goods imported against target plus licence could not be sold and were required to be used by the importer for production of the goods. On 1/8/08 M/s Windsor cleared five consignments of synthetic rubber imported against their target plus licence under Notification No. 32/2005CUS in respect of which additional custom duty had been paid. Subsequently on 6/8/08, 16/8/08, 21/8/08 and 30th September, 2008, five more consignments were imported under Notification No. 32/2005-CUS in respect of which additional custom duty had been paid. These imports had been made by buying the goods on high sea sale basis through M/s Kohinoor International. 2.2 On 14/8/08, the Jurisdictional Central Excise Superintendent, visited the unit of M/s Windsor at C-203/1, Phase VII, Focal Point, Ludhiana and found that there was no mach....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tement stated that the compounded rubber was being manufactured by M/s Kohinoor India Pvt. Ltd on job work basis, that the same was being received back and thereafter the same was being subjected to the process of mixing and testing of its properties and that it is only after these processes that the same had been sold. The testing machinery was claimed to have been taken on lease from M/s Eastman International whose partner is Shri Rakesh Gupta and two mixing mills were claimed to have been purchased from M/s Kohinoor India Pvt. Ltd., Jallandhar. Inquiry at Ludhiana - Jallandhar Highway Toll Plaza revealed that no truck carrying mixing mills from Jallandhar to Ludhiana had passed through the Toll Plaza. 2.3 The records of M/s Windsor showed that synthetic rubber compound involving duty of Rs. 16,13,060/- had been sold to M/s Kohinoor Rubber Mills [Proprietor Shri Nipun Jain], the synthetic rubber compound involving duty of Rs. 44,02,815/- had been sold to registered dealer M/s Oswal Enterprises [Proprietor Shri S.P. Jain] and thereafter, M/s Oswal Enterprises had issued invoices showing the sale of synthetic rubber compound involving duty of Rs. 37,73,889/- to M/s Asian Tire Fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....envat credit of Rs. 16,13,060/- from M/s Kohinoor Rubber Mills alongwith interest and imposition of penalty on them under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Section 11AC ibid ; (d) imposition of penalty on the registered dealer M/s Oswal Enterprises under Rule 26 (2) (i) and (ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 ; (e) imposition of penalty on Shri Aman Singhal, Partner and Shri Kimti Lal, Authorised Signatory M/s Windsor under Rule 26 (2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 ; (f) imposition of penalty on Shri Rakesh Gupta of M/s Eastman International, Focal Point, Ludhiana under Rule 26 (2) (II) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for abetment in the offence M/s Windsor ; (g) imposition of penalty on Shri S.P. Jain, Proprietor M/s Oswal Enterprises under Rule 26 (2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 ; (h) recovery of allegedly wrongly availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 37,73,889/- from M/s Asian Tire Factory Ltd. under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 alongwith interest and also for imposition of penalty on them under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act ; (i) recovery of allegedly wrongly taken Cenvat credit of Rs. 6,28,926/- f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Oswal Enterprises, Jallandhar, a registered dealer - penalty of Rs. 22,00,000/- under Rule 26 (2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002; (6) Shri Nipun Jain, Partner - M/s Kohinoor Rubber Mills - penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- under Rule 26 (2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002; 2.7 Against the above order of the Commissioner, these appeals have been filed. 3. Heard the parties at length. 4. We find that in the case, the sole allegation is that M/s. Windsor had imported synthetic rubber in terms of Notification No.32/2005-Cus for which additional customs duty paid and the said goods were sent by M/s. Windsor to M/s. Kohinoor India for job work and received back by M/s. Windsor. Thereafter did certain processes, sold to Kohinoor Rubber Mills, Jalandhar and M/s. Oswal Enterprises who further sold to M/s.Vinko Auto Industries and M/s. Asian Tire Factory Limited, Jalandhar. The first allegation is that in terms of Notification No.32/2005-Cus, the importer shall not transfer or sale the imported goods. Admittedly, in this case, the goods have been transferred by the appellant to the job worker for further processing but no demand has been raised under Customs Act, 1962 for contravention of conditi....