TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (6) TMI 219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ructural for BHEL, Trichy, Ashok Leyland, Welmen Incondacent India Limited, South India Carbonic Gas India Limited, S.F. India Limited, Industrial Engineerings India Private Limited alias Foundary Limited, Hack Prestige Heavich Easan Limited. The second accused is the Managing Partner of the first accused. On the basis of the authorisation issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Department Preventive Unit conducted a raid on 6-9-1982 in the premises of the first accused and the Officers of the Central Excise conducted a random check up of the accounts maintained by the accused firm for the year 1979 and it was brought to the light that the value of the clearance of goods for the year 1979 had exceeded the prescribed exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs. According to the accused, the defence taken before the trial Court was that they were manufacturing the steel structural fabrications either out of the raw materials supplied by others or out of their own raw materials. According to the complainant, the first accused manufacturer had cleared the goods without obtaining Central Excise Licence and without payment of duty. 3. In C.C. 1680 of 1989, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t from A2. Ex P3 is the statement of A2 and as per the bills Exs P6 and P7 produced by the accused, the value of the goods manufactured by the accused for the year 1980-81 comes to Rs. 36,99,661/62ps and that they are liable to pay the Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 55,972/93ps. The Collector of Central Excise, after considering the representation made by the accused, had levied only Rs. 22,722/97ps towards Central Excise duty. Exs P8 to P14 are the accounts maintained by the accused for the year 1980-81. 5b. P.W. 2 Thiru C. Hari Rao, the then Superintendent of the Central Excise Department during 1985 would depose that a show cause notice dated 1-1-1985 was issued by him to both the accused under the original of Ex P15. Ex P16 is the order of the Collector of Central Excise Department dated 24-10-1985 wherein he has levied Rs. 1,00,000/- towards Central Excise duty for the evasion of tax to the tune of Rs. 4,97,222/24ps. The said levy was imposed for the evasion of Central Excise duty by the accused for the year 1979 to 1983. 6. In C.C. No. 1682 of 1989, P.W. 1 Thiru A. Romond, the Superintendent of Central Excise Department (Preventive Unit) who had conducted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have manufactured the goods to the value of Rs. 17,39,736/49ps. But they have evaded the Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,39,178/92ps and the Collector of Central Excise Department has also levied a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the accused for the violation of Section 9(2) r/w 10 & 7A of the Act. 7b. P.W. 2 Thiru C. Hari Rao, the then Superintendent of Central Excise has deposed to the fact that a show cause notice was issued to the accused on 1-1-1985 under the original of Ex. P10 and that as per the departmental enquiry conducted by the Collector of Central Excise Thiru K. J. Raman, an order was passed under Ex. P11 wherein the Collector of Central Excise has stated that the accused have evaded Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 4,97,222/24ps and accordingly levied a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 173(q) of the Act and that the evasion of tax by the accused relates for the year 1982-83. 8. On the above evidences, when incriminating circumstances under Section 313, Cr.P.C. were put to the accused, they would deny their complicity with the crime. 9. The learned trial Judge, after going through the evidence both oral and documentary let in before him, has come to a conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal? 11. The Point : Admittedly, the goods manufactured and fabricated by the accused comes under Tariff No. 68. Even according to the evidence of P.W. 1, the raw materials for the manufacture and fabrication of steel goods to the accused were supplied by various companies like BHEL, Trichy, Ashok Leyland, Welmen Incondacent India Limited, South India Carbonic Gas India Limited, S.F. India Limited, Industrial Engineerings India Private Limited alias Foundary Limited, Hack Prestige Heavich Easan Limited. The learned first appellate Judge has allowed the appeal only on the ground that as per Notification No. 119/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 issued by the Central Excise, Ministry of Finance, the accused are liable to be exempted from the Central Excise duty. 12. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for Central Excise cases would contend before this Court that Notification No. 119/75 came into force only in the year 1985 and hence the accused are not entitled to take shelter under the benefits conferred in the above notification. This contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor cannot be upheld because absolu....