Page 199 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] VENKATESWARA INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS P. LTD. v. C.C.E.,C.&S.T.,HYDERABAD-III 109

with no separate manufacturing facilities and no separate stocks of
raw materials or finished products.
(2) Clearances after obtaining Central Excise registration between November,
1992 to March, 1993 : Learned Counsel submits that this demand
has been made by adding turnover of AEI to their turnover for
which there is no corroborative evidence. Since there was no sepa-
rate manufacturing facility and AEI was operating from the same
premises with no separate stock of raw materials or finished prod-
ucts, it can only be called a dummy unit and the department was
justified in clubbing these clearances with that of VIPI.
(3) Difference between Private Register No. 106 and RT-12 returns value :
We find there was a difference between the two but there is no suf-
ficient corroborative evidence to show that the difference represents
the clandestine removal. The demand on this account, therefore,
needs to be dropped.
(4) Allegation of undervaluation : This demand was arrived at for clear-
ances made to 33 parties on the ground that clearances were shown
to have been made @ Rs. 42/- per Kg. while in case of others, the
price adopted was Rs. 126/- per Kg. The statement of one of the re-
cipients was recorded which he retracted during cross-examination.
Therefore, we do not find sufficient evidence to substantiate a de-
mand on this ground.
20. In conclusion, we find there is ground to confirm the demand to the
extent of clubbing the clearances by AEI with VIPI but there is insufficient evi-
dence to substantiate the demands on other grounds. Consequently, we find
there is no sufficient ground to substantiate the confiscation, fine and imposition
of penalties on VIPI.
21. As far as VIPPL is concerned, the demand in this show cause notice
was only on account of the fact that there was a difference between the value of
sales shown in Central Excise and the sales income shown in the IT Returns. 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. Accord-
ingly, the demand on this count and consequential penalties need to be set aside
and we do so.
22. In view of the above :
(a) The demand against VIPPL under Show Cause Notice No. 150/92,
dated 8-4-1993 is upheld after deducting the value of clearances in
the name of VIPI which, the department, itself has agreed in the
subsequent show cause notice, to be a different entity and treating
any non-duty paid clearances as cum-duty clearances.
(b) The demand against VIPI under Show Cause Notice No. 184/94 to
the extent of demand by clubbing the value of clearances of AEI as
indicated in Annexure XIIA and Annexure XIIB to the show cause
notice are upheld after giving the benefit of SSI exemption, if any
and treating any non-duty paid clearances as cum-duty clearances.
(c) All other demands against VIPI are dropped due to lack of suffi-
cient evidence.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  199