AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 998
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant-company was engaged in the manufacture and re-sale of Electrical Overhead Materials/Hardware Fittings of Electrical Transmission Line, namely, 11 KV, 33KV Strain Hardware, D.O. Fuse, H.T. Fuse, A.B. Switch, M.S. Stay Set, G.I. Pin of 200 Amps., 400 Amps., etc., falling under Chapter 85 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The basic raw materials were M.S. Channel, Insulator, Gun Metal, Copper, Bolts and Nuts, G.I. Pipe, etc. They manufacture, amongst other things, A.B. Switch, D. O. Fuse, H.G. Fuse, Insulator, etc. The appellant-company availed the benefit of SSI Exemption and thus they did not pay any central excise duty so long as their clearance value did not exceed the SSI Exemption Limit. They were also undertaking trading of goods. They were maintaining the records properly. They were procuring orders from different Electricity Boards of different States namely Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd., Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Co. Ltd., Larsen and Toubro Ltd., Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and Power Grid Cor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ured by the appellant-company; it was also informed by him that the T-Series and M-Series activities were done as per the direction of the Director of the Company, namely, Shri Suresh Kumar Jaiswal. 3.2. In the course of further investigation, the statement of Shri Suresh Kumar Jaiswal, Director of the appellant-company (co-appellant herein) was recorded on 09.01.2014. 3.3. Thereafter, summons were also issued to various parties who procured materials from the appellant-company and statements were also recorded. 3.4. Although the appellant contended that they did not bring the traded goods to their factory and supplied it from their supplier's end, the Revenue alleged that the said goods claimed to have been supplied out of their trading account were actually supplied from their factory premises. Thus, it was alleged that the goods covered under both M-Series invoices and T-Series invoices were the goods manufactured by the appellant. 3.5. It is the case of the appellants that the goods mentioned in T-Series Invoices were not manufactured by the appellants in their factory at 101, 'C' Road, Howrah 711105; that the M-series of Invoices represents the clearance of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lleged that the appellant-company had manufactured the entire quantity of the goods in their factory and had shown some quantity of the goods in the guise of re-sale/trading of the goods. The manufacturing sales and trading sales have been taken together and SSI Benefit was denied. Manufacturing of the goods was inferred from the language of the Purchase Orders issued by different State Electricity Board Authorities/Power Project etc. 4.1. The appellants submitted their reply to the said Show Cause Notice contending, inter alia, that they were supplying the goods to different Electricity Boards by manufacturing and also purchasing and supplying part of the said goods due to their incapacity and insufficient infrastructure; that the appellant was availing the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification; they were not availing any CENVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs nor did they charge any central excise duty from their customers or passing on any credit to the Purchaser/Buyers; the formality of testing and inspection was done as per terms of the Order; the statements of Shri Sanjib Halder given on different dates were nothing but the improved statement and cannot be relied upo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thority has also imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on the Shri Suresh Kumar Jaiswal, Director of the said company, on the basis of his findings therein. 5.1. Against the said order, the appellants are before us. 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants inter alia made the following submissions: - (i) The Order passed by the Commissioner is wholly on the basis of assumption and presumption that all clearances made under the cover of T-series of Invoices are actually their manufactured goods though it was claimed that those were treaded goods. Such adverse inference had been made from the terms of delivery instruction. (ii) Statement of Shri Halder stating that goods cleared under CIP/Joint Inspection Report were their manufactured goods cannot be relied upon since the said statement was recorded after 2 years of the visit of the Officers; the said statement was also an improved statement and cannot be relied upon. The initial statement of Shri Halder was recorded on 10.12.2012. His subsequent statements on 17.01.2013, 18.11.2013 and 20.11.2013 and impugned statements. The initial statement of Shri Jaiswal was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uj.)] which has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of this case. (vii) Reliance has been placed on the Audited Balance Sheet for the years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, to contend that the said Balance Sheet specifically mentioned about the manufacturing sale and trading sale and also the value of the purchased goods (inputs and finished goods). (viii) Reliance has also been placed on the following:- ▪ Wintek Enterprises v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Kolkata-II [Final Order No. 7584-75842 of 2024 dated 30.04.2024 in Excise Appeal No. 76229 of 2016 & anr. - CESTAT, Kolkata]; ▪ Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2011 (266) E.L.T. 422(S.C.)]; ▪ Super Poly Fabriks Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Punjab [2008 (10) S.T.R. 545 (S.C.)]; ▪ Commissioner of Cus. (Prev.), W.B. v. Rajesh Polyfilm [2002 (147) E.L.T. 425 (Tri. -Kol)] ▪ Collector of C.Ex. v. Auro Food Products Pvt. Ltd. [1989 (44) E.L.T. 261 (Tri)] ▪ Basant Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur [1995 (75) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.)] ▪ Motilal Lalchand Shah v. L.M. K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contention is that the value pertaining to the items manufactured by them falls well within the threshold limit for exemption provided under Notification No. 08/2003-C.E. dated 01.03.2003, as amended from time to time. 9.1. We find that if the appellant's claim that they have procured certain items from the open market and supplied directly to the Electricity Boards against their work orders, is correct, then their manufactured items shall fall within the threshold limit of exemption provided under Notification No. 08/2003-C.E. dated 01.03.2003, as amended, and there is no case for the Revenue. 9.2. Therefore, it was necessary to identify as to whether the appellants had actually engaged in the activity of trading or not. For identifying the said activity, the Revenue was required to duly verify the claim of the appellants of trading of the said goods by ascertaining as to whether these 'traded' goods could have been manufactured in the premises of the appellant-company or not. It was incumbent upon the Revenue to find out as to whether the appellants were having the capacity or infrastructure to manufacture those items in their factory, or not. However, no invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner (Appeals) is without any basis, therefore, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the order of the adjudicating authority is affirmed dropping the proceedings against the appellant which was passed after verification of the records produced by the appellant during the course of adjudication as well as thereafter. Therefore, we hold that the appellant is entitled for benefit of SSI exemption Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003." 12.1. Further, in the case of M/s. Super Poly Fabriks Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Punjab [2008 (10) S.T.R. 545 (S.C.)], the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: - "There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a document has to be read as a whole. The purport and object with which the parties thereto entered into a contract ought to be ascertained only from the terms and conditions thereof. Neither the nomenclature of the document nor any particular activity undertaken by the parties to the contract would be decisive." 12.2. In this case, the figures of sales available in the Balance Sheets were required to be taken as sales against manufacturing as well as trading activities and not as....