TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 527
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The authorities below confirmed duty demand of Rs. 1,18,146/- under proviso to Section 11A(1) against M/s. Samanjas Udyog together with interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act on the ground that the value of clearances of brass bearing cages, by M/S. Atharva Udyog are required to be clubbed with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exemption and that notice for penal action under Rule 209A to M/s. Atharva Udyog is not sufficient. We find no substance in this plea for the reason that, as rightly pointed out by the learned SDR, Rule 209A has been invoked in the show cause notice issued to M/s. Atharva Udyog only because M/s. Atharva Udyog, a proprietary concern of which Shri Rushikesh Mansukhlal Gorecha was the proprietor, dea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xhibit wrongly the entity of M/s. Atharva Udhyog as an independent unit and also filed excise declarations/undertakings, obtained sales tax/income tax registration, shown purchases and sales on paper/bills only though he knew and had reason to believe that M/s. Atharva Udhyog was in fact in existence on paper and it was a dummy unit of M/s. Samanjas Udhyog, Jamnagar. It further appears that he was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich was the said premises rented to Shri Rushikesh Mansukhlal Gorecha. Thus, he engaged himself in dealing of such excisable goods liable for confiscation under Rule 173Q(1) of the Rules. Therefore, he rendered himself for penalty under Rule 209A of the Rules." 3. We therefore hold that the absence of any proposal in the show cause notice to Atharva Udyog to deny the SSI benefit availed by t....