w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Gopal Corporation Limited and Others V/S CCE, Delhi-II and Others.


Company & Directors' Information:- GOPAL CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U00513MP1948PTC000460

    Excise Appeals Nos. 54509 of 2015, 50017-50018, 50077-50079 of 2016, Excise Appeal No. 50076 of 2016 (Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 09/2015-16 dated 30/09/2015 passed by The Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi - II, New Delhi) and Final Order Nos. 50229-50235/2018

    Decided On, 19 January 2018

    At, Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: DR. SATISH CHANDRA
    By, (PRESIDENT) & THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: B. RAVICHANDRAN
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: Vivek Kohli, Ashwini Sharma and Archit Upadhyay, Advocates And For Respondents: R.K. Mishra, Authorized Representative (DR)



Judgment Text


1. These 7 appeals are on the common dispute and are accordingly taken up together. 6 appeals are by the assessee/appellants and one is by the Revenue. The brief facts of the case are that based on certain information that M/s. Gopal Corporation Limited, engaged in the manufacture of flavoured chewing tobacco with the brand name Gopal Zarda, has evaded central excise duty by clandestine manufacture and clearance of their product, the officers of Central Excise conducted search and verification in various premises connected with the said manufacturer and also in the premises of dealers of the said goods and various other units which were alleged to be dummy units created to avail ineligible exemption for central excise duty. Various documents and records were recovered; statements of connected persons were recorded and on completion of the investigation, a show cause notice dated 30/03/2012 was issued to various noticees by the ADG, DGCEI, New Delhi. Among other things, the notice demanded central excise duty of Rs. 7,33,29,882/- alongwith proposal to impose various penalties on different noticees. The noticees filed their defence submissions. The Original Authority after examining the case details and defence submissions adjudicated the case resulting in the impugned order dated 30/09/2015.

2. The Original Authority held that M/s. Gopal Corporation Limited created three front units namely M/s. Shree Balaji Enterprises, M/s. V.L. Enterprises and M/s. Golden Leaf and availed ineligible SSI exemption in contravention of Notification 8/2003 dated 01/03/2003. He confirmed duty liability of Rs. 68,89,992/- on this account. He imposed penalty equal to this amount on M/s. Gopal Corporation Limited; Rs. 23,93,783/- on M/s. Shree Balaji Enterprises; Rs. 18,77,156/- on M/s. V.L. Enterprises and Rs. 26,19,053/- on M/s. Golden Leaf under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs each on Shri Shailendra Kumar Agarwal and Shri Gopal Gupta, Director and Managing Director, respectively, of M/s. Gopal Corporation Limited. He dropped proceedings initiated against M/s. Universal Enterprises, M/s. Bhagwati Enterprises, M/s. Heena Foods, M/s. Manav Enterprises, M/s. RBM Industries, M/s. R.K. Enterprises and M/s. Bhumika Perfumers. In other words, though the show cause notice proposed clubbing of clearance of 9 units for the purpose of SSI exemption, the Original Authority held that the clearances of only 3 units are to be clubbed and the proceedings against other 6 units could not be sustained. Both the Revenue and the assessee/appellants were aggrieved by the said order and filed these appeals.

3. The learned Counsels appearing for the appellants/assessee submitted that the Original Authority failed in appreciating the factual details submitted by the appellants during the course of adjudication. The 3 units whose turnover of clearance were ordered to be clubbed for the purpose of SSI exemption were legally recognized entities and they cannot be considered as fictitious dummy units. The learned Counsels elaborated on this submission categorically stating that there are no common partners, common owners/management, common manufacturing facility/premises. Each one of them have their own income tax registration and PAN number, VAT registration, separate list of employees, ESI number and separate books of accounts. There is no evidence of financial flow back, loan availment, sale or purchase, inter-se, of any goods. There is no sharing of profit, common purchase of raw material, packing material or any common arrangement for such procurement. Similarly, there is no common transaction for sale of finished goods. The same is not done by one on behalf of another. To sum up, the learned Counsel strongly contended that there is no evidence in law or fact warranting clubbing the clearances of one unit with another.

4. The learned Counsel further submitted that the show cause proceeding were substantially based on uncorroborated statements from buyers, suppliers and owners of units under reference. No reliance can be placed on these statements as there is no corroboration at all in the form of any records to add evidentiary value to such statement. There should be a evidence to collaborate a oral statement. The learned Counsel also relied on various decided cases to support his submission that such clubbing of turnover of legally existing independent units cannot be sustained. Documentary evidence are necessary to corroborate the oral statements and the evidences in the form of records maintained by these units should be considered rather than uncorroborated oral statements.

5. The learned AR contested the appeals by the assessee/appellants stating that the officers conducted detailed verification in numerous premises and recorded statements of all the relevant parties. After careful analysis of the evidences gathered, a cogent sustainable case was brought out against the various noticees. The Original Authority while accepting that 3 of the units were dummies and are to be treated as one for SSI exemption, erred in not appreciating the full facts which are similar in respect of other 6 units. It is the case of the Revenue that all the 9 units have been floated by Shri S.K. Agarwal, Director of M/s. Gopal Corporation Limited. The proprietors or person incharge of these all 9 manufacturing units and the trading unit, M/s. Bhumika Perfumers were either relative of Shri Gopal Gupta or Shri S.K. Agarwal or otherwise connected with them closely. All the 9 manufacturing units were procuring all the raw materials from the same suppliers as per the directions of M/s. Gopal Corporation Limited. The arrangement for purchase of raw material and sale of finished goods as unearthed during investigation clearly reveals that the units which are purported to be independent legal entities are nothing but front companies acting as dummies in order to split up the turnover. All these units were acting to further the profit of M/s. Gopal Corporation Limited.

6. Elaborating the grounds of appeal by the Revenue, the learned AR submitted that the finding of the Original Authority with reference to 6 units against whom he dropped the proceedings were erroneous. The confessional statements of Shri S.K. Agarwal to the effect that the partnership firm (M/s. Universal Enterprises) was a dummy unit and was not engaged in the manufacture of flavoured chewing tobacco has been discarded, without reason, by the Original Authority. The said confessional statement also admitted the dummy nature of M/s. RBM Industry and others. The Original Authority erred in relying on certain contrary submissions without supporting evidence. The learned AR submitted that all the 9 units had closed down abruptly immediately after the search operation conducted by the officers. The payment of rent of the premises of each of these units were either arranged or paid by M/s. Gopal Corporation in cash. All the 9 units were under pervasive and complete control of Shri S.K. Agarwal, Director of M/s. Gopal Corporation. The learned AR finally prayed for setting aside the impugned order in so far as it pertains to dropping the proceedings against 6 units and remand the matter to the Original Authority for a fresh consideration of all the evidences and facts as brought out in the show cause notice.

7. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal record. At the outset, we notice though the impugned order is running into 316 pages, we find substantial portion of a order is only reproduction of contents of show cause notice and various statements and written submissions made by the noticees. Even in the discussion and finding which starts somewhere in page 281 of this order, again repetition of allegations and defence submissions on such allegation were recorded. The findings on some of the crucial aspects regarding the factual and legal status of these 9 units were in fact contradictory. After analyzing the documents referred to in the show cause notice, the impugned order (at para 74.6) holds that "from the evaluation of relied upon documents it is apparent that these documents fall short of culling out any inference towards the allegation of commonality leveled in the show cause notice. No other documentary evidence of financial transaction or any other evidence reflecting a commonality between GCL and the remaining dummy units is on record". He further concluded that the elements of mutual control and financial relationship cannot be proved in this case on the basis of documents relied upon in the show cause notice. Referring to other factors mentioned in the notice, the Original Authority examined the validity of statement in the absence of corroborations. The Original Authority recorded that the confessional statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 have not been retracted during the investigation and before the issue of the notice. The allegations were denied only through replies to the notice. Relying on various decisions of Apex court, he held that these statements are valid piece of evidences though there are no documentary evidences to support the facts contained in the statements. He proceeded to record that if the facts emerging at the stage of adjudication are contrary to the facts recorded in the statements, these statements will loose their evidentiary value.

8. On the above reasoning, the Original Authority proceeded to examine the status of each one of the units alleged to be dummy units in the show cause proceedings. He held that 3 of these units (M/s V.L. Enterprises, Shree Balaji Enterprises and Golden Leaf) are to be considered dummy units for the purpose of calculating the SSI exemption. The Original Authority recorded that though there is no positive corroborative evidence to support the allegations, "in view of the noticees inability to put up a defence to counter the accusations, the confessional statement of the noticee becomes relevant under the circumstances of the case rendering it a vital piece of evidence".

9. One important thing that emerges on examination of the impugned order is inconsistent appreciation of similar set of evidences by the Original Authority. At one place, he records that confessional statement which remained un-retracted till the issue of notice shall form an evidence. In other place, he concludes that the evidences produced by some of the units will have primacy over the un-retracted confessional statement. We note that relying on certain sporadic documentary evidences, the Original Authority discounted the un-retracted confessional statement though the said confessional statement was accepted in respect of some of the noticees. The evidences gathered and the allegations made in the show cause notice proceedings show that the modus operandi alleged is common in nature. The appellants defence in respect of all the 9 units were also almost on the same lines. In such scenario, the analysis of the Original Authority in recording different findings for difference noticees appears to be not sustainable. When the confessional statements which were un-retracted were relied upon by the Original Authority, the same has not been found sustainable in respect of some of the noticees only on the ground that certain counter evidences have b

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

een produced. 10. On overall analysis of the impugned order with reference to various allegations made in the show cause proceedings, we note that the grievances now placed before us by all the appellants (both Revenue and assessee) are having sufficient force to persuade us to hold that the impugned order as it stands cannot be sustained. Some of the serious infirmities in appreciation and analysis of evidences were recorded by us, as above. We are of the considered view that the Original Authority has to be directed to examine the whole case afresh in order to arrive at a categorical, consistent finding on the basis of available evidences and the submissions made by all the parties in the dispute. Adequate opportunities shall be provided to the appellants/assessee to submit their side of the case. We note that the Revenue's grievance regarding inconsistent appreciation of factual and legal basis of the allegation in the notice also requires consideration. As such, setting aside the impugned order, we remand the case back to the Original Authority who shall examine the evidences afresh for a decision. We have not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the case as pleaded by any one of the appellants. The appeals are allowed by way of remand.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

21-07-2020 Gopal Pradhan Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
20-03-2020 K. Palani & Others Versus R. Madana Gopal (Died) Sumathi High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Gopal Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
24-02-2020 Ramchandra Gopal Konde & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-02-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited A Government of India Enterprises, Delhi & Others Versus Gopal Prasad Jaiswal High Court of Chhattisgarh
14-02-2020 State of Rajasthan Versus Ram Gopal Jaga High Court of Rajasthan
10-02-2020 Gopal Das & Others Versus The State of Tripura & Others High Court of Tripura
07-02-2020 Oil And Natural Gas Corporation V/S Krishan Gopal And Others Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 Gopal Chandra Mishra & Others Versus The Chairman, Vananchal Gramin Bank, Dumka & Others High Court of Jharkhand
31-01-2020 Ghat Talab Kaulan Wala Versus Baba Gopal Dass Chela Surti Dass (Dead) By Lr Ram Niwas Supreme Court of India
31-01-2020 S. Gopal Versus G.R. Bellie & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Ram Gopal Supreme Court of India
24-01-2020 C. Anwar Ali Versus T. Ramani Gopal Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
22-01-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Gopal Ambadas Gawali High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-01-2020 Kumari Kothoori Triveni Versus Ch. Gopal & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
10-01-2020 Ram Gopal Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
09-01-2020 Chakkarabani & Another Versus Gopal Gounder (deceased) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 Chakkarabani & Another Versus Gopal Gounder(deceased) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Gopal Agencies National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-12-2019 Gopal Sarkar Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-12-2019 Gopal s/o Ramji Tajne (dead) thr. his legal heirs : & Others Versus Mukund s/o Sampat Khule (Dead) thr. his legal heirs : & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
17-12-2019 Gopal Aggarwal Versus M/s. Metro Motors & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-12-2019 Gopal Aggarwal Versus Metro Motors & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-12-2019 M.V. Gopal (died) & Others Versus N. Rajappan High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-12-2019 Gopal Chandra Bairagi Versus Panchanan Mondal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
29-11-2019 Panchu Mondal @ Panchu Gopal Mondal Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
29-11-2019 Chumman Lal Sahu & Another Versus Gopal Ji Singh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
14-11-2019 M/s. Sree Ramcides Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, R. Gopal Versus The Additional Director General, Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-11-2019 Gopal & Another Versus M/s. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Rep By It Chief Manager & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-11-2019 Gopal Metal Containers (P) Ltd., Guindy Industrial Estate, Presently at Royapuram, Represented by its Director G. Sekar Versus The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-11-2019 The Union of India Owning Southern Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Chennai Versus Gopal – Died & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-10-2019 M/s. Vedanta Limited Rep. By General Manager Gopal Mandelia, Sterlite Copper, Tuticorin Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle V (4) 121, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-09-2019 Gopal Versus Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Civil Lines, Nagpur through its Commissioner & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
24-09-2019 Sri Ananta Prasad Sahu @ Sri Ananta Lal Sahu Versus Sri Gopal Sahu @ Sri Golao Lal Sahu High Court of Gauhati
17-09-2019 K. Gopal & Others Versus P. Sundaresan High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-09-2019 Gopal, (Since dead), through his legal heirs: & Others Versus Union of India, through its General Manager In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
12-09-2019 Gopal Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
11-09-2019 Gopal Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
28-08-2019 C.Ve. Shanmugam Versus Nakkheeran Gopal, The Editor & the Publisher, Nakkheeran Publications, Royapettah, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2019 Krishan Gopal Versus Surinder Kumar Chadha & Another High Court of Delhi
27-08-2019 Sunanda Ramkrishna Ayare & Others Versus Harishchandra Gopal Parab Since deceased through his heirs & legal representatives & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-08-2019 State of Jharkhand & Others Versus Gopal Prasad Mandal Supreme Court of India
14-08-2019 Petu alias Gopal Versus The State of MP High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
09-08-2019 Gopal Prasad Singh Versus State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
26-07-2019 Gopal Gupta Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-07-2019 Debabrata Dutta Versus Joy Gopal Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-07-2019 Lucknow Development Authority & Another Versus Gopal Das (Deceased) Through Lrs & Others Supreme Court of India
22-07-2019 Ram Gopal & Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Dehradun Supreme Court of India
18-07-2019 State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Institutional Finance & Others Versus Ram Gopal Gupta High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
16-07-2019 Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited, Mumbai Versus Abhishek Steel & Power Limited rep. by its Managing Director, Gopal Agarwal, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-07-2019 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Gopal Debbarma & Another Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala
01-07-2019 Nutan Gopal Prabhu Malkarnekar V/S Gopal Tandon and Others. High Court of Bombay Goa Bench
25-06-2019 Gopal Chandra Mondal & Others Versus Durgadas Rakshit & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-06-2019 R. Chandrasekar Versus ‘Nakkheeran' Tamil Magazine, Royapettah, Chennai, Rep. By its Editor, Nakkheeran Gopal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-05-2019 Gopal Krishan Versus Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
01-05-2019 State of Uttarakhand & Others Versus Gopal Singh Bisht High Court of Uttarakhand
29-04-2019 Krishan Gopal Versus Parveen Rajput High Court of Delhi
22-04-2019 Gopal Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by SPP High Court of Karnataka
11-04-2019 Arjun Gopal & Others Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
04-04-2019 Laddu Gopal Versus State of Rajasthan Through PP High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
03-04-2019 Gopal Bhujangrao Kadam Versus State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Home Department, (Special) & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-04-2019 K. Gopal Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt. Municipal Administration & Urban Development Dept.Guntur Dist. & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
29-03-2019 Nakkheeran Gopal, Editor, Publisher & Printer, Nakkheeran Publications, Chennai Versus The State Rep. by the Home Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-03-2019 In the Matter of: M/s. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited Versus Gopal Krishna Raju & Another National Company Law Tribunal Chennai
20-03-2019 Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Versus Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
19-03-2019 Nakkheeran Gopal & Another Versus Nithyeshwarananda High Court of Karnataka
19-03-2019 Gopal Krishna Versus Abdul Bakai High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
18-03-2019 Gopal JI Gupta Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
15-03-2019 Sanjay Verma Versus Gopal Halwai High Court of Delhi
12-03-2019 Jai Gopal Kansal & Another Versus Indian Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-03-2019 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur Versus M/s. Gopal Shri Scrips Pvt.Ltd. Supreme Court of India
05-03-2019 Dilip Kumar Naskar Versus Gopal Das & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
04-03-2019 Sujit Gopal Pawan Versus The Administration, U.T. of Daman & Diu, Through Ballu Sankarbhai Patel & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-03-2019 Gopal Kumar Sao Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
15-02-2019 Murarilal Agrawal & Others Versus Gopal Krishna Beriwal (Dead) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
05-02-2019 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Versus Krishna Gopal Agarwal & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
01-02-2019 Gopal Chandra Paul Versus State of Assam High Court of Gauhati
28-01-2019 Gopal & Others Versus Kaleshkumari & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2019 Gopal & Others Versus Kaleshkumari & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2019 Gopal Singh Bisht Versus Central Bureau of Investigation High Court of Delhi
17-01-2019 The General Manager, Network-I, State Bank of India Versus Ram Gopal Musaddi & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
07-01-2019 State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Chennai Versus Tr. Nakeeran Gopal High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2019 Sabu Trade Private Limited, Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Director Gopal Sabu Versus Rajkumar Sabu & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-01-2019 Dr. Swaroop Gopal Versus Goli Venkateshwar Rao & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-01-2019 Dcit, Chennai Versus Tnr Gopal, Chennai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
11-12-2018 Naib Singh & Others Versus Gagan Gopal & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
07-12-2018 Gopal Singh (Dead) by LRs. Versus Swaran Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
05-12-2018 Dr. Gopal Dass Agarwal Versus Commissioner of Income Tax High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
04-12-2018 Bharathi Nagar Kudi Irupore Nala Sangam, Rep by its Secretary A. Gopal, Chennai Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government Housing & Rural Development, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2018 D. Barat Versus Ananda Gopal Maiti & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-11-2018 Madan Gopal Versus Delhi Transport Corporation Through its Chairman-cum-M.D. I.P. Estate, New Delhi Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
23-11-2018 P. Selvaraj Versus R. Gopal High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2018 G. Gopal & Others Versus The Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Chengalpattu & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-11-2018 Gopal Versus Nagarajan & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-10-2018 Tammisetti Venu Gopal Versus Chennaiah & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
23-10-2018 Arjun Gopal & Others Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
20-10-2018 Gopal Wasudeo Gulhane Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
16-10-2018 Ram Gopal Versus State High Court of Delhi
10-10-2018 N. Kumarasamy & Others Versus Adarsh Educational Trust, Rep. by its Chairman Dr.Gopal Surendran Adarsh Vidya Kendra, Kanyakumari District & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
09-10-2018 The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, New Delhi Versus M. Gopal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras