AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns were started by the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II against various units located in the jurisdiction under Meerut-II Commissionerate, who were purchasing inputs from J&K and North East based units. The officers of Meerut-II Commissionerate searched the the premises of various commission agents dealing in sale and purchase of crude mentha oil in the State of U.P. including M/s Sachin & Nitin Enterprises from whom the appellant had purchased crude mentha oil. On the basis of said investigations at the end of the commission agents and farmers, Meerut-II Commissionerate concluded that the J&K based units including the appellant were not purchasing crude mentha oil, so there was no question of manufacture and clearance of finished goods by the J&K based units including the appellant. 2.3 At the instance of Meerut-II Commissionerate, the jurisdictional Central Excise Commissionerate, Jammu issued show cause notices to several units of J&K including the appellant raising demands of duty refunded to or self-credit taken by such units under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. dated 14.11.2002. After following the due process, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of C.E., Chandigarh had admitted that on close scrutiny of records, the following facts had emerged:- (i) most of the consignments of raw material of Jammu units were found entered at the Toll barrier; (ii) officers of the D.I.C., who had assessed and fixed manufacturing capacity of the units, had been regularly verifying their purchase consignments; (iii) the Central Excise Range staff, who had been visiting those units for PBC checks and verification of plant & machinery, had reported nothing adverse against those units. This letter dated 21.05.2010 vindicates stand of the appellant that they had received crude mentha oil in their unit and had manufactured menthol flakes and DMO; and had cleared their finished goods to M/s Sangam Aromatics, Rampur (U.P.). 4.5 He further submits that prior to the issuance of the impugned SCN, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jammu had issued a SCN dated 01.12.2006 alleging that the process carried out by the appellant on the raw materials did not amount to manufacture and demanding inter alia self-credit taken by the appellant under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. dated 14.11.2002 during the period August 2005 to January 2006, am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Final Order No. 63600/2018 in Appeal No. E/60423/2016 (Tri. Chandigarh) * Neeru Enterprises, Abhay Chemicals, Sudhanshu Agarwal, Himanshu Agarwal, M/s. Siddhant Chemicals vs. CCE - 2019-TIOL-3071- CESTAT-CHD * Nectar Lifesciences Ltd., Narbada Ind., etc. vs. CCE & ST, Chandigarh - Final Order No. 63193-63196/2018 in Appeal Nos. E/60916/2017, E/60002-60004/2018 (Tri. Chandigarh) * Arora Aromatics, Narbada Industries, V.S. Industries, etc. vs. CCE - Final Order No. A/71939-71959/2017-EX(DB) dated 01.11.2017 (Tri. Allahabad) * Marico Ltd. vs. CCE - 2020 (371) ELT 916 (Tri. -Chandigarh) * SKM Egg Products Export (I) Ltd. vs. CCE - 2016 (341) ELT 411 (Tri. Chennai) 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the department reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused of the material on record; and have also gone through the various decisions arising out of the same investigation. 7. We find that this issue is no more res integra and the Tribunal has already decided a number of cases arising out of the same investigation and all the appeals have been allowed by the Tribunal in f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny of the records, the following facts emerges: (i) Most of the consignments of raw material were found entered at the Toll barrier. (ii) The Officers of District Industry Centre, who have assessed and fixed the capacity of manufacturing units, have been regularly verifying their purchase consignments. (iii) The Range staff had also been visiting these units for PBC Checks/verification of plant/machineries and reported nothing adverse against these units. 6. Therefore, it may not be strongly alleged with certainty that during the period 2005-2006 to 2008-2009, these 27 units have not purchased crude Mentha oil and therefore have not manufactured any Menthol products in their units at all. There is hardly any time left for further investigation to strengthen the case as process is very time consuming and most of these of units have closed their factories due to withdrawal of Central Excise Duty on all Mentha products w.e.f 27.02.2010. Thus, the investigation may not be in tune with the investigations conducted by the Central Excise Commissionerate Meerut-II." 11. We further take of the fact that the similar issue on identical facts came up before this Tribunal in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endering statements were declared non-existent etc. however, on close scrutiny of the records, the following facts emerges: (i) Most of the consignments of raw material were found entered at the Toll barrier. (ii) The Officers of District Industry Centre, who have assessed and fixed the capacity of manufacturing units, have been regularly verifying their purchase consignments. (iii) The Range staff had also been visiting these units for PBC Checks/verification of plant/machineries and reported nothing adverse against these units. 6. Therefore, it may not be strongly alleged with certainty that during the period 2005-2006 to 2008-2009, these 27 units have not purchased crude Mentha oil and therefore have not manufactured any Menthol products in their units at all. There is hardly any time left for further investigation to strengthen the case as process is very time consuming and most of these of units have closed their factories due to withdrawal of Central Excise Duty on all Mentha products w.e.f 27.02.2010. Thus, the investigation may not be in tune with the investigations conducted by the Central Excise Commissionerate Meerut-II." 9. The said report also support th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nufacture. The adjudication is to be done on the basis of evidence produced before the Adjudicating Authority. As per Evidence Act evidence in totality is to be taken into consideration and therefore, finding recorded in the impugned Order by the Original Authority who passed the said Order dated 29/01/2010 is bad in law. The Original Authority did not understand the process either of assessments or of adjudication. Further the investigations were not undertaken to find out wherefrom the inputs were received by the appellant for the goods they manufactured and on which they paid duty and which were exported, if they had been received the inputs from M/s Ruchi Infotech System, Jammu or the other suppliers of inputs. Further, the additional evidence submitted by the appellant indicated that in respect of units in Jammu, Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises and seen that the manufacturing process going on was evidence by them and such evidences being on record and submitted by the appellant it was the duty of the Original Authority to accept them and not to discard by saying that the Officers have not seen the goods being manufactured by their own eyes. Further, the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....presumption which is not sustainable. In view of above, no penalty is imposable on the appellants. 14. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief." 8. Further, we find that on the basis of the same investigation conducted by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, the case was booked against the various parties namely M/s Arora Aromatic & Others and the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 71939-71959/2017 dated 01.11.2017, has allowed all the appeals of the parties by observing in para 10 as under: "10. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, we find that the basic allegations in the Show Cause Notice was that M/s Arora Aromatics did not receive inputs on which they availed Cenvat credit basically on the contention of Revenue that M/s Ruchi Infotech System, Jammu did not have facility to manufacture the inputs received by M/s Arora Aromatics and that the goods did not move from Jammu & Kashmir to the appellants factory and therefore, Cenvat credit was not admissible. The evidence submitted by the appellant in the form of Order-in-Original passed by Commissio....