Page 197 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] VENKATESWARA INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS P. LTD. v. C.C.E.,C.&S.T.,HYDERABAD-III 107

and without ver of VIPI also. Therefore, for the peri-
payment of od 1991-92, the Dept. cannot take a
duty (peri- stand that VIPI is an independent unit
od l-4-91 to to demand this amount from VIPI
31-3-1992)
For the period 1992-93, the Dept. has
taken the stand that AEI is a dummy
unit of VIPPL and issued SCN to them
demanding Excise Duty for the turno-
ver of also. Therefore, for the period
1991-92, the Dept. cannot take a stand
that AEI is the dummy unit of VIPI to
demand this amount from VIPI
XIIB Clearances 556868 As the turnover for 1992-93 (upto Oc-
after obtain- tober 1992) has been added to VIPPL
ing Central and Excise Duty has been demanded,
Excise regis- SSI Benefit has to be considered for
tration arriving at this demand. This demand
(November, is made by adding the turnover of AEI
1992 to [Rs. 20.25 lacs], for which there are no
March, corroborative evidence.
1993)
XIIC Difference 23136 Since the amount is small, the appellant
between is not contesting the same separately as
private reg- the same will get set side of the Classi-
ister No. fication issue is decided. Such differen-
106 (value) tial duty has been set aside in one of
and RT 12 the earlier orders for VIPPL.
value [6/93
to 11/93]
The allegation is that goods under 62
Gate Passes have been cleared without
payment of ED, in respect of 13 parties.
Only one statement from one party has
been recorded. No further corrobora-
tive evidence, in this first OIO, this
demand was dropped.
XIIE Under val- 213736 Undervaluation has been alleged in
uation of respect of 6 parties. Statement was rec-
goods orded from only one Party, i.e. Shekar-
[Clearance nath, Authorized Signatory of Surana
of goods at Petro Products Ltd., who also has re-
lower rate @ tracted his statement during the Cross-
Rs. 42/- par examination. Hence, this allegation is
kg instead not backed by any corroborative evi-
of Rs. 136/- dence, [Retraction at Para 75.2 of OIO
per kg) No. 10/2005, dated 28-6-2005. Page No.
(period 17- 109 of VIPPL Appeal]. Hence the same
l2-92 to 28- cannot be relied upon as an evidence.
4-93) No further corroborative evidence
brought in by the Dept.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  197