Kartik Dyeing and Printing Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....under chapter heading no. 5406 of the central excise tariff act 1985. preventive checks were carried out by the central excise officers at the factory and office premises of the appellants at surat and silk city market, ring road, surat. during the search of the premises, it has been found that trading of processed polyester fabrics, including saris, was being carried out from this premises. in the said premises, it was observed that various groups of companies of kartik group, viz. m/s. kartik saris pvt. ltd., m/s.kartik sarees, m/s divya prints, m/s. anil fabrics and m/s. p.d. silk mills were working. the officers took stock of the finished processed fabrics at the said premises and compared it with the documents found in the premises. on comparison, a total 4,120 pcs. of processed fabrics, cut into individual sarees each measuring to 6 mtrs. total 24,720.00 l. in excess of the stock shown in the documents. it was totally valued at rs. 6,42,720 (rupees six lakhs forty two thousand seven hundred twenty only).3. the contention of the appellants is that the goods were seized from the business premises and were found cut into sarees, which were the remnants of several lots.....

Judgment:

2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of processed man-made fabrics (dyed and printed) falling under chapter heading No. 5406 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. Preventive checks were carried out by the Central Excise Officers at the factory and office premises of the appellants at Surat and Silk City Market, Ring Road, Surat. During the search of the premises, it has been found that trading of processed polyester fabrics, including saris, was being carried out from this premises. In the said premises, it was observed that various groups of companies of Kartik Group, viz. M/s. Kartik Saris Pvt. Ltd., M/s.

Kartik Sarees, M/s Divya Prints, M/s. Anil Fabrics and M/s. P.D. Silk Mills were working. The Officers took stock of the finished processed fabrics at the said premises and compared it with the documents found in the premises. On comparison, a total 4,120 pcs. of processed fabrics, cut into individual sarees each measuring to 6 mtrs. total 24,720.00 l. in excess of the stock shown in the documents. It was totally valued at Rs. 6,42,720 (Rupees Six Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty only).

3. The contention of the appellants is that the goods were seized from the business premises and were found cut into sarees, which were the remnants of several lots accumulated during the sorting and it was not possible to compare with the duty paying documents and hence, it cannot be concluded that they were non-duty paid. All these contentions were raised before the adjudicating authority, on which, clear finding was recorded. Further, it is observed that the appellants have failed to produce documentary evidence to revert the allegation levelled by the department. Ultimately, the order-in-original was upheld confirming the duty demand and imposition of penalty on the appellants and as well as Shri Anil Kumar Fatehpuria. Redemption fine of Rs. 15,000 also imposed.

The appellants have not redeemed the goods on the ground that the goods do not belong to them.

4. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that there is no strong prima facie case in favour of the appellants for complete waiver of pre-deposit amount and to grant stay. Therefore, the appellants are directed to make pre-deposit of Rs. 30,000 (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) as against the duty confirmed within a period of six (6) weeks and report compliance by 14th November, 2005, subject to such compliance, further pre-deposit of duty and penalty is waived and stay is granted from its recovery. Order accordingly. List the appeal in its turn.