TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment's allegation that the relationship between M/s. Gillete and M/s. MJ is that of master and servant, is accepted, the exemption under notification no.50/03 can not be denied. - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/1608, 1773/2008-EX (BR) and E/1716/2009-EX(BR) - 261-263/2011-EX(PB) - Dated:- 25-1-2011 - Hon'ble Shri Justice R.M. S. Khandeparkar, President Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Appearance: Shri V.Lakshmi Kumaran Shri S. Bhargava, Advocates appeared for the appellants. Shri B.K. Singh, Jt. CDR appeared for the Respondent/Department. Per Rakesh Kumar: M/s. Gillete India Limited, Plot No.59, HPSIDC, Industrial Area, Baddi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as M/s. Gillete) hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the period from September, 2003 to September, 2007 were confirmed against M/s. Gillete along with interest under Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and besides this, penalty of Rs.52,08,94,776/- was also imposed on M/s.Gillete under Section 11 AC ibid. The first duty demand of Rs.52,08,94,776/- had been confirmed by invoking the extended period under proviso to Section 11 A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. By this order, the Commissioner also imposed another penalty of Rs.14 Crores on M/s.Gillete under Rule 25 (1) of the Central Excise Rules and besides this, imposed penalty of Rs.1 Crore on M/s. M.J. under Rule 26 ibid. (b) Vide Order-in-Original No.26/CE/CSD dated 6.3.2009, the Commissioner in respect of the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quired declaration has been filed by M/s. MJ, the same would be deemed to have been filed by M/s. Gillete and that in view of this, there is no ground for denial of duty exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE. He, therefore, pleaded that there is absolutely no basis for the denial of the duty exemption under Notification No.50/03-CE and for the duty demands and the penalties. 4. Shri B.K. Singh, ld. Jt. Chief Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner and pleaded that since as per the condition of the exemption Notification No. 50/03-CE , the required declaration is required to be filed by the manufacturer and since it is M/s. Gillete, who is the manufacturer and not M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
