Page 240 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

126 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

invoices i.e. Shri Nirav C. Soitra of M/s. Famous Ceramics in his statement dated
5-1-2010, Shri Bachubhai Patel of M/s. Kaveri Ceramics in his statement dated 6-
1-2010, Shri Pankaj Patel of Cosmo Ceramics in his statement dated 6-1-2010, Shri
Naresh Patel of Arrow Ceramics in his statement dated 6-1-2010 and Shri Nath-
alal Brarva of M/s. Morvi Ceramics in his statement dated 7-1-2010 has refused
purchasing goods on parallel invoice. No payment against such parallel invoices
was received. He relies upon judgment in case of Ebehezer Rubber - 1986 (26)
E.L.T. 997 (Tri.).
As regard demand of Rs. 62,67,000/- on the ground that the appellant
has wrongly claimed the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003
dated 1-3-2003 as their clearances exceeded the exemption turnover, he submits
that since the above demands does not sustain, therefore the appellant are eligi-
ble to claim SSI Exemption limit in subsequent years.
7. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the identical investigations
were made against other frit manufacturers and show cause notice on same
grounds were issued. On confirmation of demand by the adjudicating authority,
the appeals were filed before Tribunal and all appeals were taken up together for
disposal. The Tribunal vide order dated 12-5-2015 in the matter of Belgian Glass &
Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. and Others, allowed all the appeals of frit manufacturers and set
aside the demand. The Tribunal’s order has been upheld by the Hon’ble High
Court. Their case stands even on better footing from other cases as not a single
evidence of clandestine removal or undervaluation has been found.
8. Shri A. Mishra appearing for the Revenue submits that demands are
sustainable as the goods were undervalued and 26 buyers have accepted the
same. He also submits that the demand based upon consumption of gas is also
sustainable as the same was used for manufacture of frit which was cleared clan-
destinely by the appellant. He reiterates and supports the findings of the im-
pugned order.
9. Heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that investi-
gations were initiated against majority of frit manufacturers of Morbi region and
the show cause notices were issued on identical grounds alleging undervaluation
of goods, taking basis of consumption of fuel, increase in price of goods after ini-
tiation of investigation etc. In the present case we find that demand of
Rs. 3,28,68,656/- has been made on the ground that the appellant had underval-
ued the goods. Such demand is based upon the statement of the buyers of the
goods. However we find that except the statements of some buyers no evidence
has been put on record. The evidence in the form of details of cash receipts from
buyers, any document proving cash transaction on account of undervaluation
has not been brought on record. We also find from the statement of buyers that
the statements were inconsistent as initially they stated that the cash amount was
given to appellant through Angadias or their Tiles dealers. However in subse-
quent statements they stated that the amount was handed over to Shri
Hiteshbhai, employee of Appellant Unit. During investigation no evidence of
any unaccounted money having been received by the appellant from any of the
tile manufacturers was found. The ledger registers produced by the tile manufac-
turers before the officers contained details of payment made by them through
cheques and no cash payment towards purchase of goods from the appellant was
found. Neither there was any entry in their private records showing any unac-
counted payment made by them to the appellant. No evidence at all from more
than 26 customers to whom the frit was sold by the appellant has been produced.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  288