Page 189 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] VENKATESWARA INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS P. LTD. v. C.C.E.,C.&S.T.,HYDERABAD-III 99

ingly, benefit of exemption under Notification No. 287/86-C.E. not available,
neither CFC nor CCC conforming to description of specialty oils. [para 5]
Demand - SSI Exemption - Department themselves admitting their
subsequent notice that VIPI is a separate entity - Turnover of VIPI, therefore,
needs to be deducted from the total turnover in this show cause notice and
demand needs to be reduced to that extent - Imposition of fine and penalties
not warranted - Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. [para 13]
Demand - Clearances made in the name of VIPI and clearances in the
name of AEI operating from the same premises with no separate manufactur-
ing facilities and no separate stocks of raw materials or finished products -
Clearances of VIPI and AEI to be clubbed together and demand confirmed to
that extent after giving the benefit of SSI Exemption, if any and treating any
non-duty paid clearances as cum-duty clearances - Section 11A of Central Ex-
cise Act, 1944. [paras 19, 20, 22]
Demand - Demand against VIPPL on account of difference between
the value of sales shown in Central Excise and the sales income shown in the
IT Returns not sustainable, such a difference can be a cause for suspicion and
investigation but by itself cannot be conclusive evidence that goods were
clandestinely removed and sold - Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. [paras
21, 22]
Appeals disposed of
REPRESENTED BY : Shri R. Muralidhar, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri N. Bhanu Kiran, Authorized Representative, for
the Respondent.
[Order per : P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (T)]. - These appeals are
filed by the appellants M/s. Venkateswara Industrial Products Pvt. Ltd. (VIPPL),
its Director Shri C. Ramdas, M/s. Venkateswara Industrial Paint Industry (VIPI),
its Proprietrix Smt. Meera Ramdas and Shri G. Muthyalu against the same im-
pugned order (Order-in-Original) No. 27/2010 (De novo) CE (Hyd-III) Commr.,
dated 31-12-2010 and hence are being disposed of together.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records. This is the third round of
litigation with respect to these matters. The show cause notices were issued in
1992 and 1994 and after decision vide Order-in-Original No. 22/1998, dated 28-1-
1998, the matter was remanded by the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 517-
524/2003 to reconsider the issue afresh. In the second round of litigation vide
Final Order Nos. 1470-1474/2009 the matter was again remanded to the original
authority with specific direction to consider the issue of classification which was
disputed but not considered despite the direction of CESTAT in the original re-
mand order. In the impugned order, the question of classification of products
was discussed and the demands were confirmed. The issue in brief is that VIPPL
is a limited company engaged in manufacture of two products called “Cable Fill-
ing Compound” (CFC) and “Cable Cleaning Compound” (CCC). They avail the
benefit of SSI exemption. Show Cause Notice No. 150/92 was issued alleging that
the turnover of VIPPL should be clubbed together with the turnover of VIPI,
Newton and Appolo Engineering Industries (AEI) alleging that these three are
not separate manufacturing units but are fictitious entities operating from the
same premises. Accordingly, differential duty has to be paid after reckoning the
total turnover of all these companies as clearances by VIPPL. The second Show

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  189