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



Reliance Cable Industries v/s Commissioner of GST (East) Delhi


Company & Directors' Information:- RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L17110MH1973PLC019786

Company & Directors' Information:- CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31300MH1957PLC010964

Company & Directors' Information:- RELIANCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2006PLC218261

Company & Directors' Information:- EAST INDIA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U61100TN1942PLC000704

Company & Directors' Information:- U. P. CABLE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31300DL1974PTC007318

Company & Directors' Information:- A T C (EAST INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090MH2000PTC126349

Company & Directors' Information:- GST PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104MH2002PTC136410

Company & Directors' Information:- A. M. CABLE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31908DL2010PTC201788

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. V. CABLE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64204MH1999PTC119288

Company & Directors' Information:- RELIANCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52190MH2006PTC218260

Company & Directors' Information:- RELIANCE CORPORATION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1948PTC017421

    C E A C Nos. 45, 46 of 2018, Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos. 35746, 35747 of 2018

    Decided On, 14 November 2018

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

    For the Appearing Parties: Rupesh Kumar, Harpreet Singh, Suhani Mathur, Advocates.



Judgment Text


S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

The question of law sought to be urged by the appellant in these two appeals is whether in regard to the total circumstances of the case, the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was justified in rejecting the appeal without appreciating the facts and evidence before it.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 08.08.2011, search and seizure proceedings were carried out in the appellant's premises. There is no dispute that it manufactures electricity wires and cables. Based upon the materials on record and the statements of various individuals including that of Sh. Lalit Jain- proprietor as well as his brother, a show cause notice was issued by the Revenue on 08.07.2013. The allegations in the show cause notice were briefly that the material included certain loose sheets and diaries, all of which tied up by the statements recorded in the course of the investigation from suppliers of raw materials. The Revenue also relied in the show cause notice, upon the statement of the proprietor as well as his brother. It also relied upon the statement of an employee who worked with the appellant as an Superintendent in the office. The appellant denied allegations of clandestine removal and submitted besides arguing that the diaries per se did not have any evidentiary value, that the materials on record nowhere justified an inference that clandestine removal has been resorted to. The appellant also produced other documents and materials including electricity consumption bills etc. to say that the activity carried on and the returns filed with the excise authorities did not warrant a finding of clandestine removal or attract a duty liability. It was urged that the bills and invoices seized and the statements made by the raw material suppliers in fact established that duty had been paid and that no liability therefore, could arise.

3.The order-in-original of the Commissioner of Central Excise made on 31.07.2014 analyzed the nature of the evidence as well as the statements recorded of the appellant as well as his brother and several other individuals, including the raw material suppliers located out of Delhi. The Commissioner was of the opinion that the main buyers from whom sale proceeds were received were M/s. Classik Cable Corporation, M/s. Deepak Electricals, M/s Vimal Electricals, etc. In the event, it was also stated that they were also found that the main suppliers of raw materials were M/s Taparia Polymers, M/s Omex Metal Industries and so on. The Commissioner, thereafter, recorded his findings, from Para 5 to 22 of the order-in-original. On the basis of these findings, the Commissioner directed recovery of Rs.1,57,10,335/- together with penalty of equal amount from the appellant. Rs.15 lacs which was deposited by the appellant was directed to be appropriate towards the amounts due.

4.The appellant approached the CESTAT complaining that the order-in-original recorded perverse finding which was based upon the materials on record. The Tribunal rejected the appeal. The material portion of the Tribunal's order is as follows:

"8. The main evidences on which the Revenue's case is based as summarised below.

(i) Unaccounted raw material as well as finished goods were found in the factory at the time of search on 08.08.2011.

(ii) Some loose slips and sale invoices, recovered from the factory at the time of search indicated clearances of finished products by using invoices in the name of M/s Universal Enterprises, Shahdara to various customers. The firm in the above name was found to be not in existence at the address cited in the invoices. This firm was admitted to be a fake firm as confirmed by Sh. Chittaranjan Pradhan, Supervisor cum Operator of the appellant. Invoices of such fake firm was made use of by the appellant as cover for clandestine clearances made without payment of duty.

(iii) Certain loose papers were recovered at the time of search at the residence of Shri Lalit Jain, Prop. These loose sheets contained the details of various raw material suppliers and the quantum of such raw materials procured by the appellant. The main supplier of copper wire was M/s Balaji Metal, Shahdara, Delhi. Sh. Naresh Gupta, Prop. M/s Balaji Metal confirmed in his statement dated 08.08.2011 that raw materials have been supplied to the appellant by his firm. He also confirmed the total quantity of such raw material supplied to the appellant during the years 2007-10,2010-2011 and 2011-12.

(iv) The other major raw material i.e. PVC compound was supplied by M/s Ankur Plastic, Shahdara Prop. Vimal Kaparia. He admitted in his statement dt. 24.07.2012 that raw materials were supplied for payment in cash to the appellant. He also confirmed that the quantum of raw materials as was found in the loose papers recovered from residence of Sh. Lalit Jain was supplied to the appellant.

(v) The other suppliers also confirmed the same. During investigation, upon checking the bank account of the appellant, it was found that some of the supplied raw materials found in the loose sheets were paid for by cheque by the appellant.

(vi) Certain books/ diaries were also recovered from residence of Sh. Lalit Jain. In such diaries, the details were found regarding sale of finished products. Such diaries recorded partywise, datewise, running account of sale value, receipt of sale proceeds and outstanding balance, for the period 2008-09 to 2010/2011. Upon verification of the bank account of the appellant, it was noticed that many of the sale transactions were found tallied with the credit entries in the bank account. Further, many of the entries found in the diaries were also duplicated in the loose sheets.

(vii) The investigating officers recorded the statements of Sh. Lalit Jain on 08.08.2011, 10.08.2011, 30.08.2011, 11.04.2013 and 17.05.2013. In these very detailed statements, Shri Lalit Jain has admitted the fact that raw materials were being procured often by cash without accounting. He also admitted that the finished goods were also cleared clandestinely for payments received by cheque and sometimes in cash. It is seen from the RUDs that he has confirmed in details the transactions with each of the raw materials suppliers as well as finished product purchasers. On the basis of the above main evidences, Revenue has made the case for demand of duty on the basis of allegations of clandestine removal.

9. The main grounds on which the order has been assailed are summarized be1ow-

(i) Sh. Lalit Jain, Prop. is only standard eight pass and is not comfortable with the use of the English language. Consequently, it has been argued that the statements recorded by him in the firm's computer were obtained under duress and dictated to him.

(ii) The manufacturing capacity of the factory was not enough to manufacture the quantum of goods alleged to have been cleared clandestinely. It has been argued that with only two extruders and winding machine the quantum of production alleged would not have been achieved.

(iii) It has also been argued that the documents recovered from residence of Sh. Lalit Jain do not pertain to the appellant, but pertains to the business of his brother Sh. Prithaviraj Jain who is said to have been working as commission agent.

(iv) The adjudicating authority, in the impugned order, has given detailed findings on all the above grounds. The documents recovered from house of Sh. Lalit Jain clearly indicate the names of various raw material suppliers, quantity of raw materials procured and the period during which the same has been procured. The documents also indicate in detailed the various customers with the details of goods cleared as well as the payments received and pending. Many of the entries found are corroborated by payments made/ received in the bank account of the appellant. Obviously, such transactions are accounted. This leads us to the reasonable conclusion that the documents found are a truthful account of the actual transactions made by the appellant in terms of procurement of raw material as well as manufacture and clearance of the finished products. We also note that in the several statements recorded from Sh. Lalit Jain, he has admitted in detail each and every entry found in such documents. The adjudicating authority has also given detailed findings in para No. 20 on how the appellant factory had the capacity to manufacture the quantum of goods alleged to have been cleared clandestinely. We are convinced on the basis of the Adjudicating authority's finding that appellant had the capacity to manufacture the quantity allegedly cleared clandestinely.

11. It has been contended that the loose sheet and diaries seized from the residence of Shri Lalit Jain do not pertain to the appellant, but pertains to the commission agent business said to have been run by Shri Prithaviraj Jain, brother of Shri Lalit Jain. This contention has been dealt with in para 16 of the impugned order. The Revenue has sent repeated summons to Sh. Prithaviraj Jain to seek his clarifications in connection with discrepancies in the statements made by Sh. Lalit Jain and Sh. Prithaviraj Jain. Shri Prithaviraj Jain has chosen to disappear from the scene and absent himself. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority rightly did not place credence on the statements given by Sh. Prithaviraj Jain.

12. After considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, we come to the conclusion that in the light of the evidences placed on record by the Revenue in the form of documents as well as various inculpatory statements, we are of the view that the allegation that the appellant has procured raw materials, manufactured wires and cables and cleared the same clandestinely without payment of duty stands established. Consequently, the demand of duty as well as the penalties imposed in the impugned order is upheld. The order for confiscation of seized goods also stands upheld."

5.Learned counsel urges that the Tribunal omitted to discuss the detailed evidence and besides merely placed its imprimatur on the findings of the Commissioner which is not expected of it. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported as Prabhat Zarda Factory Co. & Ors. v CCE, Delhi, CEAC No.7-9 of 2018 (decided on 16.5.2018). It was urged besides that the statements of the proprietor and his raw material suppliers were interpreted adversely against them and that the statement of several suppliers, in fact established that there was no element of bias. It was urged that on a totality of evidence and if one looked into the analysis carried out by the Commissioner - in the orderin-original, it was evident that the Revenue fell prey to glaring discrepancies. In this regard, it was highlighted that as against the total sum of over Rs.6.1 crores, allegedly paid, the appellants allegedly had a turnover of Rs.5.21 crores. Learned counsel submitted that this was an inherent improbability, which exposes the findings of the Revenue. He submitted that, since the CESTAT did not apply its mind, its findings are perverse.

6.The Commissioner in the order-in-original took note of the fact that the seizures of the documents and other materials (including loose sheets, invoices, diaries etc.) were tied up by the statements of the raw material suppliers. At one stage, the appellant had urged that the material belongs to one Prithvi Raj Jain, his brother. However, the statement of Prithvi Raj Jain did not fully corroborate the version given by Lalit Jain, the proprietor of the appellant. The order-in-original noted importantly as follows:

"14. It is submitted by RCI in defense that the documents on the basis of which demand is raised show only the amount and date; that these nowhere give the description of the goods or the quality or quantity of goods and the amounts mentioned have been assumed to be pertaining to the sale of goods manufactured and cleared clandestinely.

14.1 I find the truth to be otherwise. Infact, Annexure XII specifically refers to page No. 12 (supplied to RCI as relied upon document No. X) of S.No. 15 of Annexure 'A' to Panchnama dated 8.8.2011 drawn at the factory premises of RCI which mentions the name of the item(coil), their quantity, size, amount and name of the party (S.B. Elec., Erode). In this regard, Shri Lalit Jain, proprietor of RCI admitted that they cleared wire and cable valued at Rs. 17,66,345/- to M/s S.B. Electricals, Erode clandestinely in cash during 2011-12 without issuing any invoice. Similarly, invoices of the fake firm in the name of Universal Enterprises (quantified in Annexure XII) and supplied to RCI as relied upon document No. IX mention the name of the item, size, quantity, rate, value and name of the party. Shri Lalit Jain confessed that M/s Universal Enterprises was a fake firm created by him and sale affected through these invoices had not been accounted for in their books of accounts. Further, the impugned documents (three Scholar Fancy Memo Book) resumed very clearly mention the names of the buyers. These parties are buyers as these very parties are reflected in the sale invoices of RCI. I further find that names of these very buyers are mentioned in the loose pages 1 to 7 of S.No. 6 of Annexure 'A' to panchnama dated 8.8.11 drawn at the residence of Shri Lalit Jain, proprietor of RCI. The clinching evidence is that in these 1 to 7 pages some payment was shown to have been received from these very parties by cheque/DD on various dates. These payments on verification by the Department were found to have been credited in the bank account of RCI, details of which were supplied to RCI as Annexure-III. Similar is the position of payments made to various raw material suppliers by cheque/DD and reflected in these documents (pages 1 to 7) which on verification were found to have been debited in RCI's bank account (Annexure-III of SCN). One of the suppliers of raw material Shri Naresh Gupta of M/s Balaji Metals confirmed in his statement that the entries shown in page 6 and 7 of S. No.6 of Annexure 'A' of Panchnama drawn at the residence in the name of 'Nareshje' pertained to his firm M/s Balaji Metals and he had received the amount mentioned from Shri Lalit Jain for supply of bare copper wire to RCI during in 2009-10 in cash and cheque. Further, the parties mentioned in these documents were also admitted by Shri Lalit Jain to be its buyers and supplier of raw material. He admitted that the resumed three Scholar Fancy Memo Book contained details relating to sale value of wire and cable made by them to various buyers and details of payment received in return. In fact the documents i.e., three Scholar Fancy Memo Book (diaries) contain party-wise and date wise running account which is clearly sale value, receipt of sale proceeds and outstanding balance. Shri Lalit Jain explained that the entry occurring like 364=25, 482=22, 52771=5S on page22, 16 and 27 of diary (Scholar Fancy Memo Book) No.1, 2 and 3 were to be read as Rs.36,425/-, Rs.48,222 and Rs. 52,77,158/- respectively; that due to stiff market competition they used to purchase unaccounted raw material from the suppliers in cash and accordingly sale of finished goods i.e. PVC wire and cable was made in cash only and that they did not maintain any record in respect of goods sold without bills. The above goes to prove that the transactions shown in the resumed documents were very clearly related to sale of wire and cables and purchase of raw materials only. Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the amount mentioned in the resumed documents represented value of the wire and cables clandestinely removed.

16. Relying on statements dated 10.08.2011 of Shri Lalit Jain and dated 14.03.2012 of Shri Prithiviraj it is submitted that the statements clearly show that the documents recovered from the residence were written by Shri Prithviraj; that an effort was made by Prithviraj to explain the entries in the records; that the details contain the amount pertaining to purchase and sale done by Prithviraj and that none of the details in those records pertained to RCI. It is further argued that statement dated 11.04.2013 and 17.05.2013 of Shri Lalit Jain are not correct statements.

16.1 I find from records that Shri Lalit Jain stated on 8.8.2011 that his elder brother Prithviraj was unemployed and was dependent on him. However, Shri Prithviraj stated on 4.1.2012 that he was a commission agent and the documents (Scholar Fancy Memo Book) pertained to purchase and sale of household goods to different persons. As Shri Prithviraj appeared to have distorted facts with an obvious motive to help his brother Shri Lalit Jain, he was summoned to appear on 22.10.2012, 31.10.2012, 7.11.2012, and 20.11.2012. However, the summons was received back undelivered with the remarks from the postal authorities that-no such person resided at that address. Further, on22.03.13 summons were sent through special messenger who met Smt Jyotsna Jain wife of Shri Lalit Jain who informed that Sh. Prithviraj earlier used to reside with them but since last one and a half year he had shifted to Rajasthan. She could not give the present address of Sh. Prithvirai, Moreover, Sh. Lalit Jain, in his statement dated 11.04.13 had given address of Sh. Prithviraj as Village Bharini, District Jallore, Rajasthan. Again summons was dispatched on the given Rajasthan address on 16.04:13 but the same were also returned back undelivered. Thus, it is apparent that Sh. Prithviraj intentionally avoided his appearance before the department and facts disclosed by him in his statement dated 4.1.12 cannot be treated as truthful as he was assisting his brother Sh. Lalit Jain in his business operations of M/s Reliance as admitted by Sh. Lalit Jain in his statement dated 17.05.13.

16.2 I further find that explaining pages 1 to 7 of S. No.6 of Annexure 'A' to panchnarna drawn at the residence of Shri Lalit Jain, Shri Prithviraj stated that these details were related to commission received against sale of goods by him, cash transactions and details of money financed by him to different parties. He stressed upon that these transactions had no relation with the business of MIs Reliance. I find that untruthfulness of statement of Shri Prithviraj is evident from the fact, that various entries in these documents showing payment/receipt through cheque/DO to raw material suppliers/ buyers of RCI were on verification by Department found to be debited/credited in RCI bank account. Further, these very documents contained details of bare copper wire received from Shri Naresh Gupta of M/s Balaji Metals, who admitted having received the amounts mentioned on page 6 (of loose page 1 to 7) in cash and cheque for supply of bare copper wire was seized both from the factory premises of M/s Balaji Metals and RCI. Thus, the documents were clearly related to RCI and contained details of raw material suppliers and buyers and the monetary value of the raw material received in cash and wire and cables supplied in cash.

17. Referring to typed and in English language statements dated 11.4.2013 and 17.5.2013 of Shri Lalit Jain, it is argued that he could neither type nor had working knowledge of English and these statements were just placed before him and he was made to put his signatures. I find from statement dated 11.4.2013 of Shri Lalit Jain that he admitted at the start of the statement that "I am 8th pass. I can read and write Hindi and understand English". He also wrote in his own hand "Seen & Read" before putting his signatures in English". Further, on panchnama dated 8.8.2011 drawn at the factory premises of RCI he wrote in English in his own hand "Received copy of Panchnama" and put his dated signatures in English. In his statement dated 8.8.2011 he again in his own hand used and wrote various words in English like "PVC, MIB, Copper Wire, coil, OVEN, MOMENT, LINEMAN, CLASSIK, Industries, Bill No.105- Universal Enterprise, S.B. Electrical, H.D.F.C. BANK SHAHDARA, VISHWAS NAGAR, Bilty, SR.D. Transport" etc. Various English words like "insulated, concern, material, triplicate, entry, operator, enterprises, annexure" have also been written in Hindi while writing statement in Hindi. It is apparent from the above that Shri Lalit Jain is literate, has good working knowledge of English at least sufficient enough to understand the statement tendered/typed in common English language. Further, both statements dated 11.4.2013 and 17.5.2013 are concluded with the-remarks "I have again read the statement before putting my signature and it is recorded as per facts". I further find that the statements were tendered on 11.4.2013 and 17.5.2013 and this is the first time after over a year that an effort has been made to retract from them. Such belated retraction has no meaning.

18. Further argument of RCI is that the statements of the raw material supplies namely Shri Mahesh Kumar Taparia of M/s Taparia Polymers and of Shri Vimal Taparia of M/s Ankur Plastics cannot be used against them. I do not agree. In fact both these suppliers in their unretracted statements tendered under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 admitted having sold PVC to RCI on kachi parchi. These statements are corroborated by the fact of seizure of unaccounted PVC made from factory premises of RCI on 8.8.2011 weighing 2920 kg. valued at Rs. 1,31,400/- and are admissible as evidence. Regarding statement of Shri Naresh Gupta proprietor of M/s Balaji Metals, who admitted having supplied bare copper wire to RCI and also accepted the entries made at page No.6 and 7 of S.No. 6 of Annexure 'A' to Panchnama dated 8.S.2011 drawn at the residence of Shri Lalit Jain, it is submitted that as stated by Shri Prithviraj these entries pertained to trading done by him (Prithviraj). I have already discussed this point in paragraph 16, 16.1 and 16.2 above and come to the conclusion that statement of Shri Prithviraj does not state true facts and these entries are in fact related to unaccounted receipt of bare copper wire from M/s Balaji Metals. Thus, it is apparent that the resumed documentary evidence regarding receipt of excess and unaccounted raw material i.e. bare copper wire, PVC, etc. as reflected in the resumed documents stand corroborated by the statement of the raw material supplier, Shri Lalit Jain of RCI, and seizure of PVC, bare copper wire, master batch and empty boxes at RCI and of bare copper wire at the factory premises of M/s Balaji Metals.

19. RCI has further submitted that the Department conducted investigation at buyer's end as well as from the transporters but did not bring on record the result of such investigation. I find that the Department is at liberty to prove its case by any means consistent with the Central Excise law, The evidence available against RCI has been supplied to them and they have been given an opportunity to rebut the allegations leveled. Further, -copies of all the non-relied upon documents have also been returned to Shri Lalit Jain, proprietor of RCI on 12.12.2103. I note that Shri Lalit Jain stated on 8.8.2011 that the transporter M/s S.R.D. Transport did not issue any bilty for the transportation of goods.

20. Next argument of RCI is that the unit is working on two extruders and maximum capacity of such extruder is not more than 20-25 bundles of cables of size Tffii-ri1f the extruders run continuously for 8 hrs that the unit worked in one shift only and did not have Generator Set in the factory.

20.1 I find from record that on 8.8.2011 when the factory premises of RCI were visited by the Department, the unit was found to be working with 10 workers. Two insulation machines, two mixers for heating and mixing PVC granules, one bunching machine, two lining machines and two coiling addas were also found installed. In his statement recorded on 8.8.2011 itself Shri Lalit Jain explaining the process of manufacture elaborated that with the help of the machines installed 300 cable bundles of 90 metre coil each could be manufactured in 8 hours. Nothing has been brought on record to disprove this part of the statement. Further, the statement stands corroborated by sales account of M/s S.B. Electricals, Erode for the month of July, 2011 resumed as page No. 12 of S. No. 15 of Annexure 'A' attached to Panchnama dated 8.8.2011 drawn at the factory premises of RCI (copy supplied as relied upon document No. X), which shows clearances of 233 bundles on 1.7.2011, 261 on 8.7.2011, 367 on 11.7.2011, 300 on 17.7.2011, etc. The size 1mm cable referred to by RCI in defence, is known as 14/11, as stated by Shri Lalit Jain in reply to questionNo.2 of statement dated 11.4.2013. Wire and cable of this l rnm (14/11) size is also mentioned in S.B. Electrical, Erode account and 152 bundles were cleared on 1.7.2011 and 207 bundles on 11.7.2011. Further, needless to say that this is clearance made to one party only. Unaccounted raw material collectively valued at Rs. 3,27,960/- was also seized on 8.8.2011. I further observe that though stated to be working for 8 hours only, nothing prevented RCI from working round the clock. In the light of above discussion I find that RCI had the capacity to produce wire and cables of the value alleged in the SCN. It is further contended that their electricity expenses were in the range of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month as per the sub-meter installed in the factory. I find the ledger account of Power & Electricity for the year 2006-07 to 2011-12 submitted along with reply to the SCN to be unauthenticated. In the circumstances, no notice can be taken of it. Moreover, no evidence of use of electricity out of the main connection by others with use of sub-meter arid the quantity of goods manufactured by them has been brought on record. Further, for establishing charge of clandestine removal the Department is not bound to prove excess electricity consumption.

21. RCI has further argued that private record/diaries of third party cannot be the sold basis for clandestine removal where the authenticity is doubted or there is absence of corroborative evidence; that charge of clandestine removal must be corroborated by independent and unimpeachable evidence such as purchase of excess raw material/excess consumption of electricity/transport and delivery of goods; that burden to prove charge of clandestine removal is always on the Revenue and that duty demand cannot be based on assumptions and presumptions.

21.1. I have already found above that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the documents resumed pertained to RCI, purchase of unaccounted raw material and sale of wire and cable by them and that statement of Shri Prithviraj was untruthful and baseless. I observe that unaccounted receipt of raw material as reflected in the resumed documents stand corroborated as detailed in paragraph 10 to 10.3, 11 to 11.2 and 12 above. Further, clandestine removal is also corroborated in the manner explained in paragraph 13 to 13.6 and discussions and findings above. Reliance has been placed by RCI on a number of case laws. The decisions in these cases appear to have been rendered in the unique facts and circumstances of the case and are, therefore, distinguishable. I have discussed all these points canvassed by RCI as mentioned above and in my humble view there is no merit in the arguments advanced."

7.It is evident that when the appellant's premises were visited by the anti-evasion team, manufacturing activity was carried out. According to the order-in-original based upon the inspection report, two insulation machines, two mixers for heating and mixing PVC granules,

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

one bunching machine, two lining machines and two coiling addas were found installed. The statement of the proprietor Lalit Jain explained the process of manufacture and elaborated that with the help of machines installed 300 cable bundles of 90 metre coil each could be manufactured in eight hours. The Commissioner noted - in our opinion, correctly, that this itself established that the unit had the capacity to produce what was ultimately attributed to it. As far as the facts related to the raw material and the other documents recovered from the appellant are concerned, the Commissioner noted that the statement of the one Vimal Taparia, Proprietor of M/s Ankur Plastics clearly admitted that he had made sales of PVC Compounds to the appellant without issuing invoices and without proper accounting. The Commissioner also compiled the facts gathered on analysis of the loose sheets and the documents. He further noted that certain payments against raw material suppliers namely Naresh, Taparia, Omex and buyers namely Classic, Sasi Elec.Vinayalca, Paras Elec., Vikram Elec., Deepak Elec. were made by cheques/DDs. These were found to have been credited/debited in the bank accounts of the appellants. This according to the Commissioner constituted evidence to establish that purchase of raw material to produce the machinery have been corroborated. Furthermore, the three diaries i.e. the Scholar fancy memo book clearly mention the names of the buyers. The names of these parties were reflected in the sale invoices. 8.Initially, the proprietor Sh. Lalit Jain stated that his brother Prithvi Raj Jain was unemployed and dependent on him. Sh. Prithvi Raj Jain, on the other hand, stated that he was a commission agent and the documents pertain to purchase and sale of the household goods of different persons. The Commissioner deduced that Sh. Prithvi Raj Jain appears to have distorted the facts with the motive of helping his brother. Initially, he had participated during the investigation but did not appear despite repeated summons in the proceedings. The Commissioner in these circumstances held that the statement of the proprietor's brother was unreliable and that the documents seized revealed a completely different story. 9.No doubt, the CESTAT has not discuss the evidence as greatly as it normally does and is expected to. What is however evident - from a plain reading of paras 6 to 10 is that the main points, which ultimately led the Commissioner to impose penalty and also inflict duty liability were taken into account. It is of course, desirable that the CESTAT as First Appellate Forum should discuss the evidence in some depth. 10.In the facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that upon a total analysis of the circumstances, especially having regard to the statements made by the various parties including the third parties i.e. the sellers of the raw material, the inference drawn by the Commissioner could not have been faulted. The questions of law urged by the appellant are purely factual. On this ground the appeals are dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

25-09-2020 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Madurai Versus Tamilarasan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-09-2020 Manager [Legal], Reliance General Insurance Company, Chennai Versus Jeya & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-08-2020 Usha Ramachandran Versus Canara Bank, Rep by its Branch Manager, Anna Nagar (East) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2020 M/s. Metal Tubes & Rolling Mills, Marol Maroshi Road, Andheri (East) & Another Versus The Official Liquidator, Liquidator of Transpower Engineering Ltd. (In Liqn.) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-08-2020 Silajit Guha Versus Sikkim University, Represented by and through the Registrar, East Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
18-08-2020 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Tirupur Versus S. Veeramani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-08-2020 Branch Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.), Madhya Pradesh & Another Versus Lekhram Avadhiya National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 P.P. Suresh Kumar, Managing Director, Kerala Communications Cable Ltd., Kochi & Another Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
05-08-2020 M/s. Siti Cable Network Ltd. & Another Versus Commissioner of Service Tax & Another Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
05-08-2020 Doosan Infracore India Private Limited, Rep., by N. Krishnakumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissinerate, Chennai Versus M/s. Saksoft Ltd., Perungudi, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Sujoy Chatterjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-07-2020 Subhash Joshi & Another Versus Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
26-06-2020 U. Manikandan, Mani Poultry Farm, Annamooli, Palakkad Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, State GST Department, Special Circle, Palakkad & Another High Court of Kerala
26-06-2020 Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Girijabai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Sajal Kumar Banerjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-06-2020 The Municipal Commissioner, Gangtok Municipal Corporation, East Sikkim & Another Versus Pabitra Singh Kami & Others High Court of Sikkim
08-06-2020 P.P. Jose, Manager, Mattoor, Kalady, Rice Tech Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus M.M. Abdulkhader, Proprietor, East India Trading Company, Kothamangalam & Another High Court of Kerala
01-06-2020 Kendrap Lepcha, East Sikkim Versus State of Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
11-05-2020 South East Asia Marine Engineering & Constructions Ltd. (Seamec Ltd.) Versus Oil India Limited Supreme Court of India
08-05-2020 Weatherford Oil Tool Middle East Ltd. Versus Vedanta Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
15-04-2020 Union of India, through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) & Another Versus Ganeshibai @ Sunderibai In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
23-03-2020 Delhi Public School, East Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
18-03-2020 J. Fransis Xavier Versus State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, All women police station (East), Coimbatore (Cr.No.165/2007) High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-03-2020 Anushree Malviya Versus Reliance Digital Ltd. & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
12-03-2020 Deivendiran & Others Versus State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti East Police Station, Thoothukudi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-03-2020 The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer, Chennai V/S The Glovis India Private Limited, F-98, Kancheepuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Salem Versus Parameshwari & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 D.B. Basnett (D) Through Lrs. Versus The Collector, East District, Gangtok, Sikkim & Another Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Prime Cable Network & Another High Court of Delhi
25-02-2020 Supriyo Raychaudhuri Versus GTPL Kolkata Cable & Broadban Pariseva Ltd., West Bengal & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-02-2020 M/s. Hwashin Automative India Pvt. Ltd., Sriperumbudur Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Poonamallee Division, (Not known as the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Irungattukottai Division), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Versus Rakesh Sharma & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
18-02-2020 The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Devikamma @ Devakemma & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
17-02-2020 M/s. Carenow Medical Prviate Limited, Rep. by its Director & the auth. Rep.T.Rajkumar Versus Rajesh Sodhi, The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 Reliance Industries Ltd. Versus Gail (India) Ltd. High Court of Delhi
14-02-2020 The North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation through its Divisional Controller, Kalaburagi Versus Anzamma & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
05-02-2020 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Ranjit Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-02-2020 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Ranjit Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-02-2020 Reliance generators Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director, Chennai Versus Assistant Commissioner, Vadapalani II Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 M/s. Reliance Construction Co., Mumbai & Others Versus Priti O. Ganvir & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-02-2020 M/s. Phoenix Rubbers, Palakkad, Represented By Sakkeer Hussain, Managing Partner Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, State GST Department, Palakkad & Others High Court of Kerala
03-02-2020 Union Bank of India V/S North East Region Housing Finance Company Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
03-02-2020 Sutherland Mortgage Services INC, Cochin, Represented by Achutarama Gupta Nesthala Vizupu, Authorized Signatory, V.K. Gupta Versus The Principal Commissioner, Office of The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Central GST & Central Excise, Kochi Commissionerate & Others High Court of Kerala
29-01-2020 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by Manager Legal Versus A.V. Radha & Others High Court of Karnataka
27-01-2020 M/s. Kannileth Cable TV Network, Alleppey Represented by Its Proprietor C.T. Samuel Versus Asianet Satellite Communications Private Limited, Trivandrum, Represented by Its President & Chief Operating Officer Sankara Narayanan High Court of Kerala
21-01-2020 M/s. Samrajyaa and Company, Represented by its Partner N. Ranganayaki Versus Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Office of the Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Star Build Max Pvt Limited Balua Tal, Motihari, District- East Champaran, Through its Proprietor Parvez Ahmad Khan Versus State of Bihar Through, Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-01-2020 Proddatur Cable TV Digi Services Versus Siti Cable Network Limited High Court of Delhi
09-01-2020 ASL Builders Private Limited V/S Commissioner of Central GST & CX, Jamshedpur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
08-01-2020 Taj Sats Air Catering Ltd V/S C.C.G.ST., Mumbai East Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
07-01-2020 Union of India Versus Reliance Communication Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
06-01-2020 Asutosh & Another Versus Commercial Taxes Department (GST) & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
20-12-2019 Samarendra Das, IFS, East Agartala, West Tripura Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
18-12-2019 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited & Others Versus Koushalya Ananta Chaudhari & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-12-2019 The Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai – V Commissionerate Versus M/s. Reliance Media Works Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. Adlabs Films Ltd.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-12-2019 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Others Versus Vilas Laxman Bangar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-12-2019 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Warishan & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-12-2019 Supriyo Raychaudhuri Versus GTPL Kolkata Cable & Broadband Pariseva Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
26-11-2019 Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd. Versus Niki Tiwari High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-11-2019 BGR Energy Systems Limited, Represented by its Assistant Vice President Accounts, Chennai Versus The Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Office of the Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nungambakkam, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2019 Reliance Retail Limited V. State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
11-11-2019 O.P. Achuthankutty & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Station House Officer, Thrissur East Police Station Through The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala & Another High Court of Kerala
16-10-2019 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Rai's Tower Versus Prabhavathi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-10-2019 The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., East Sikkim Versus Kakali Sarkar Guha & Others High Court of Sikkim
01-10-2019 Santosh Basfore Versus The Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, Maligaon & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
18-09-2019 Reliance Life Sciences Private Limited Versus M/s. Genentech Inc & Others High Court of Delhi
14-09-2019 Directorate of Enforcement (PMLA) through its Assistant Director, Kolkata Versus Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University, East Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
11-09-2019 Padam Kumar Chettri, East Sikkim Versus State of Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
06-09-2019 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Anna Nagar, Chennai Versus Padma & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2019 Hassad Food Company Q.S.C. Versus Reliance Asset Reconstrucation Company Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
03-09-2019 East African (India) Overseas Versus Govt. of National Capital Region of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
02-09-2019 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Manoj Singh @ Manoj Chandrawanshi & Another High Court of Delhi
22-08-2019 Samuel Tennyson Versus The Principal & Secretary, Madras Christian College (Autonomous), Tambaram East, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-08-2019 M/s. Alkraft Thermotechnologies (Pvt.) Ltd., Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai, Rep. by Authorised Signatory, P. Sirajudeen Versus Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-08-2019 Samuel Tennyson Versus The Principal & Secretary, Madras Christian College (Autonomous), Tambaram East, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2019 M.N. Rajaram & Others Versus The Secretary Committee on Co-operative Elections Cases East Central Zone Trichy Central Co-operative Building, Trichy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-08-2019 Samuel Tennyson Versus The Principal & Secretary, Madras Christian College (Autonomous), Tambaram East, & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-08-2019 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Murlidhar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
07-08-2019 The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate Versus Intimate Fashions India (P) Ltd., Guduvancherry High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2019 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Piyush Kumbnani & Others High Court of Delhi
25-07-2019 Senior Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., East Sikkim Versus Managing Director, Sikkim Power Development Co. Ltd. (SPDCL), East Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
24-07-2019 M/s. Premier Cotton Textiles, represented by its Senior Manager, S. Vaidyanathan, Poolankinar Post, Udumalpet Versus The Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Coimbatore Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-07-2019 Reliance Commodities Ltd. Versus National Commodity & Derivatives Exchange Ltd. Ackruti Corporate Park, Mumbai & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
18-07-2019 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Savita Gajanan Patil National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-07-2019 Alkem Laboratories Ltd V/S Commissioner of GST And Central Excise, Daman High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-07-2019 Traco Cable Company Ltd V/S Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization and Others. High Court of Kerala
05-07-2019 Ramesh Kumar Sharma & Others Versus East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Through its Commissioner & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
05-07-2019 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Resham Singh & Another High Court of Delhi
04-07-2019 The Union of India through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur & Others Versus Sona Devi & Another High Court of Gauhati
04-07-2019 M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., (Formerly ‘M/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd.'), Versus The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Chennai Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
28-06-2019 The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., TP Claims Legal Department, Nungambakkam Versus Saravanakumar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-06-2019 M/s. Mehrotra Buildicon (P) Ltd., M.P Versus Deputy Chief Engineer (Con.), South East Central Railway, Raipur & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
20-06-2019 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Now known as The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichirapalli Versus M/s. Madras Cements Ltd., Ariyalur High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-06-2019 M/s. Indira Industries, Rep. by its Manager, Finance, G. Mugunathan Versus The State Tax Officer, Guidyatham East High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2019 M/s. Sowmiya Spinners (P) Ltd., Coimbatore Versus The Superintendent, Office of the Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore District High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-06-2019 Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-06-2019 Legal Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Kempaiah & Others High Court of Karnataka
24-05-2019 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Versus Colonial Life Insurance Company (Trinidad) Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-05-2019 In Re: Mr. Kuntal Chowdhary 3, West Bengal, India Versus Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited Atlanta Arcade, Near Leela Hotel, Andheri, Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai Maharashtra, India & Others Competition Commission of India