TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing involved in all these appeals, they are taken up together, for disposal by way of a common order. 3. The facts of the case are that M/s. Arham Petro Products (the appellant no. 1 herein) is a Proprietorship Firm and M/s. S.L. Polypack (Private) Limited (the appellant no. 3 herein) is a Private Limited Company [hereinafter collectively referred to as the appellants-companies]. The appellants/companies are engaged in the manufacture of "Disposable Cups and Glasses of Plastics" falling under Chapter Heading No. 39.24 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants claimed the benefit of Small Scale Exemption vide Notification No. 9/2001-CE dated 01.03.2001 for the period 2001-02 and 200203 and Notification No. 9/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 for the period 2003-04 to 2004-05 by paying concessional rate of duty at the time of clearance of their goods. 4. On 16/17.01.2006, a search was conducted in the factory premises and office premises of the appellant no. 1 as well as the factory premises and Head Office of the appellant no. 3, which resulted in recovery of seizure of various documents both statutory and private. The Officers of the Department condu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not entitled for concessional rate of duty in terms of SSI Exemption Notification No. 9/2001-CE dated 01.03.2001, as amended, for alleged violation of the conditions contained in the said Notification. Thus it was alleged that there was a short-payment of Rs.25,43,547/- during the period from 2001-02 to 2004-05 in respect of M/s. Arham Petro Products (appellant no. 1) and a short-payment of Rs.18,27,311/- during the period from 2002-03 to 2004-05 in respect of M/s. S.L. Polypack (Pvt.) Ltd. (appellant no. 3). 4.5. It was alleged against M/s. S.L. Polypack (Pvt.) Ltd. (appellant no. 3) that the Input Stock Register is maintained in computer at Head Office on the basis of Input Invoices, without actual/physical verification of the same at the factory gate; the private 'Stock Register', seized from the factory premises of appellant no. 3 under Seizure List Serial Number 23/SLP/Fact/06, was maintained on actual basis by Shri Dipak Choudhury, the Supervisor of the appellant no. 3, at the factory, whereas the official 'Input Stock Register' maintained in computer at Head Office on the basis of Input Invoices and CENVAT Credit is availed and utilized on the basis such entries made in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble from the appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 3 respectively. c. There is Clandestine removal of Finished Goods as per the difference in Statutory Records and Private Records and thus duties amounting to Rs. 4,20,102/- and Rs. 25,28,905/- were recoverable from the appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 3 respectively. d. The appellants had wrongly availed small scale exemption on goods with the brand ('Essel') of another person, which is in violation of the said Notification and thus, duty amounting to Rs.25,43,547/- was recoverable from the appellant no. 1 and duty amounting to Rs.18,27,311/- was recoverable from the appellant no. 3. e. CENVAT Credit to the tune of Rs. 16,09,248/- had been irregularly availed by the appellant no. 3 without receipt of raw materials and thus recoverable. f. Parallel Invoices had been maintained by the appellant no. 1 with a view to evade central excise duty and thus duty amounting to Rs. 19,024/- was recoverable from them. g. Shri Alok Goyal (appellant no. 2), Proprietor of M/s. Arham Mangal and Director of another registered company namely M/s Essel Kitchenware (P) Ltd, was involved in the alleged of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods has been inferred from some rough records and entries therein without any corroborative evidence; the sales were made on the basis of pieces and are not on the basis of weight; there was no corroborative evidence in respect of procurement of huge raw materials, consumption of electricity, identification of buyers etc.; there was also no evidence that the appellants had availed and utilised credit without receiving any goods; the Department did not find whether the inputs on which credit was taken by the appellants were not received by the appellants; some entries in the Rough Exercise Book without any corroborative evidence cannot be relied upon. It was also contended that the payment made during investigation cannot be said to be the acceptance of any allegation. The appellants also relied upon various decisions in support of their contentions. 7.1. Subsequently, the de novo Order-in-Original No. 36/COMMR/CGST&CE/HWH/Adjn/2017-18 dated 06.02.2018 was passed by the Ld. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Howrah Commissionerate, wherein the Ld. Commissioner again confirmed the demands against the appellants on the basis of his findings. 7.2. Against the said order, the appellants a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tries recorded in the Computerised Statement on receiving the goods. Adverse inference cannot be made on the basis of having no entry in the seized documents. The availment of credit, therefore, cannot be said to be irregular. Since the allegation are merely on the basis of unsubstantiated speculations, the demand cannot survive, the question of charging interest and imposition of penalty does not and cannot arise. (iii) Regarding the imposition of penalty on Shri Alok Goyal and Shri Suresh Chand Goyal under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, it is submitted that the condition precedent for imposing penalty under Rule 26 has not been satisfied in this case. The findings in respect of imposition of penalty on the appellant nos. 2 and 4 are on the basis of the vague allegations and baseless finding in respect of allegations against the appellants-companies. When the same are not maintainable, the question of imposition of penalty under Rule 26 on the said appellants cannot be maintainable in law. The condition precedent for imposition penalty under Rule 26 was not satisfied. The finding as contained the impugned order are not sufficient for imposing penalty under Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the basis of eye estimation alone, shortage of raw materials or finished goods cannot be established. Therefore, the demands raised in the present case on account of shortage of raw materials / finished goods found during the investigations is not sustainable. Issue (2): Demand(s) raised on account of manufacture of 'branded' goods by denial of SSI exemption available in terms of Notification No. 09/2001-CE dated 01.03.2001 and Notification No. 09/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 13. On the ground that the appellants were manufacturing branded goods, the SSI exemption as provided under Notification No. 09/2001-CE dated 01.03.2001, as amended, has been denied. In fact, during the course of investigation, the same material was found in the brand name of "Essel", i.e., having the marking only, and the said brand name was embossed on the samples drawn from the factory of the appellants. These brands are not owned by anybody. No corroborative evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue in support of their allegations. In fact, M/s. Essel Kitchenware Private Limited is having the said brand name, but that too, for other goods, and not for the goods in question. In these circumsta....