Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (5) TMI 272

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alidity of the said notice and then following the order of the High Court dated 13 July 82, further proceedings were held in adjudication resulting in the order dated 4-9-1964 of the Assistant Collector whereunder he confirmed the demand. This order was set aside on appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune under his order datded 21-8-1971. The Collector directed that without prejudice to re-adjudication on the merits of the case the order of the Assistant Collector was set aside. Subsequently another notice dated 4/5-5-1979 was issued. After further steps following the same the Assistant Collector passed orders on 15-11-1979 confirming the demand again. This order was upheld by the Appellate Collector under his order dated 8-10-1982. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n for the appellants that there had been no proper investigation in the absence of statements having been recorded from partners of Ram Kumar and Co. and that there had been further violations also of principles of natural justice. This order was passed on 21-8-1971. 4. But no further steps following the same appears to have been taken till the Deptt. issued another show cause notice on 5-5-1979. Shri Sethana comments that this very delay should invalidate the further proceedings in adjudication. We shall take up this contention later, if necessary. To continue the narrative, the Assistant Collector held further adjudication and passed his order on 21-11-1979. Hereunder also he came to the same conclusion as earlier, that in respect of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssistant Collector. 5. The result was that in the subsequent adjudication also, following the issue of the second show cause notice, there was no participation in the proceedings by the partners of M/s. Ram Kumar Co. and though the account books of the said Company appear to have been seized and relied upon to make out a case against the appellants there had been no opportunity given to the appellants to establish their case by taking steps for discrediting the said account books if needed. In his subsequent order dated 21-11-1979 also the Assistant Collector held that the two firms (the appellants and Ram Kumar Co.) were part of a family concern and had mutual interest in each other. He appears to have arrived at this conclusion on t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e such weaving charges would in the normal course be more or less uniform for all weavers. This variation itself would suggest that there were transactions of sale of yarn followed by transaction of sale of fabrics, though the yarn price was being paid out of payments received subsequently on the sale of the fabrics. 6. Shri Vineet Kumar relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shree Agency -1977 E.L.T. (J 168) = [Cencus 1976 Page 94-D] in seeking to uphold the conclusions of the lower authorities. But it should be noted that the decision of the Supreme Court was, in the said case, to uphold the finding of the Assistant Collector and the Collector that the alleged sale of yarn to the actual weavers in the said case wa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d down in the Shree Agency decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. From the mere fact that the partners of Ram Kumar Co. and the partners of Satyanarayana Textiles were related to each other, it would be wrong to draw a conclusion, on that ground only, that the two concerns were but a single legal entity. 7. In view of the above conclusion, we hold that the decision of the lower authorities that the appellants were the manufacturers of the fabrics woven on the powerlooms, though these powerlooms were owned by and registered in the named of the various firms who received their supply of yarn from Ram Kumar Co., is not correct. We, therefore, further hold that the demand for payment of duty from the appellants on th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates