M/S Shree Radhey Krishna Process vs Cce Ahmedabad-I

Arising out of OIA No.143 to 146/2008(Ahd-I)CE/ID/Commr(A), dt.4.8.2009, passed by: Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad-I

1. M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Process, 2. Shri Sanjeev Premhans Agarwal, 3. Shri Chandraprakash Lalchand Agarwal, 4. Shri Prem Prakash Lalchand Agarwal. Appellants

Vs

CCE Ahmedabad-I Respondents

Represented by:

For Assessee: None For Revenue: Shri Alok Srivastava, Dy.Commissioner (AR)

For approval and signature:

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:06.01.15

Order No.A/ 10017-10020/2015, dt.06.01.2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. These appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, all are taken up together for disposal.

2. None appeared on behalf of the appellants. There is no application for adjournment on the record. It is seen that the matter was adjourned on earlier occasions and old one, and therefore I take up the appeals for hearing.

3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Process Appellant No.1 was carrying out processing of MMF falling under Chapter 54 and 55 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on job work basis. On 21.06.2004, the Central Excise Preventive Officers visited the factory premises and examined the records. It was found that the Appellant No.1 had received fabrics from M/s Radhey Textile Mills under the cover of Annexure II challans. During stock verification, the said Central Excise officers detected the excess/shortage of stock. A show cause notice dt.06.06.2007 was issued proposing the demand of duty of Rs.12,78,000.00 on clandestine clearance of processed fabrics to the quantity of 1672122 mtrs, along with interest and penalty. It has also proposed imposition of penalty on Shri Chandraprakash Lalchand Agarwal, Shri Premprakash Lalchand Agarwal, Power of Attorney Holder of M/s Radhey Krishna Textile Mills and Shri Sanjeev Premhans Agarwal of M/s Radhey Krishna Textile Mills. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.12,78,000.00 along with interest and penalty of equal amount on Appellant No.1 and also imposed penalty of Rs.50,000.00 on Shri Chandraprakash Lalchand Agarwal, Shri Premprakash Lalchand Agarwal, and Shri Sanjeev Premhans Agarwal Appellants No.2, 3 and 4, under the provisions of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals filed by the appellants.

4. Ld.Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the appellants are not contesting the clandestine removal of the goods. The main contention of the appellants is that the demand is barred by limitation as investigation was completed on 04.12.2004, whereas the show cause notice was issued on 06.06.2007 which is beyond the normal period of limitation. Ld.Authorised Representative for the Revenue relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Surat-I Vs Neminath Fabrics Pvt.Ltd.  2010 (256) ELT 369 (Guj.).

5. After hearing the ld.Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, I find that the appellants, in the grounds of appeal, contended that the case was made out only on the basis of statement and no other documents are available for arriving the demand of duty. It is also contended that the notice was issued to the appellant on 06.06.2007 while the investigation was completed on 04.12.2004 and therefore, the notice was issued after 2= years which is clearly beyond the normal period of limitation.

6. I agree with the submissions of the ld.Authorised Representative that this is a case of clandestine removal of goods. Therefore, the normal period of limitation would not be applicable. It is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Neminath Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. (supra). It is seen from the adjudication order that the case was made out on the basis of folding report, transport documents and miscellaneous papers as mentioned in the Annexure to the show cause notice. So, the submission of the appellant that the case was made out on the basis of statement, cannot be accepted. The appellant has not countered the documents as referred in the show cause notice as well as in the adjudication order.

7. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeals filed by the appellants are rejected.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial)

cbb

4