9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Stay Petitions filed for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved, as the issues are inter-connected and arise out of the same Order-in-Original, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The adjudicating authority in a common adjudication order has confirmed the duty liability with interest on M/s Yogesh Associates (hereinafter referred to as 'main appellant'), suppliers of laminations/perfumes/ sacks, job workers and individuals are visited with penalties under the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the ground that the main appellant had cleared Gutkha by evading duty and all the suppliers and the individuals had in collusion with him abetted such clandestine removal of Gutkha on which there was evasion of duty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the manufacturing of Gutkha. He would also bring to our notice that the investigations, though being substantial, could not bring on record that there were purchases of other materials/inputs which were required for manufacturing of Gutkha. It is his submission that for manufacturing of Gutkha, beetle nut, tobacco, katha, and perfumes are required which have not been shown as being procured clandestinely by the main appellant, hence the quantity shown of clandestine manufacture and clearance of Gutkha pouches seems to be irrational. He would also submit that the main appellant is getting the goods done on job work and discharge the duty liability on the goods which were received by them and cleared. He would also draw our attention to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o demand of duty on them, the question of imposing penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 does not arise. 6. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the job workers would submit that the appellant was penalized by the adjudicating authority without indicating the reason for imposing penalty on him. It is his submission that the appellant herein is penalized for being front company created by the main appellant for clandestine manufacture of gutkha, on instruction of main appellant. It is his submission that no concrete evidence has been put forth in penalizing the appellant M/s Sunrise Pan Masala and the individuals connected with it, as they have been maintaining the records of doing the job work is not rebutted by the adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice or defence reply, the adjudicating authority has merely proceeded on the basis of interim reply given by the appellant based upon the show cause notices issued to other noticees and the employees of this company, is gross violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of various individuals and individuals who are unrepresented before us, on perusal of the records, we find that all the individuals are contesting imposition of penalties on them on various grounds and one of them being unnecessarily penalized as they have done nothing wrong to attract penalty under Rule 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 9. Ld. Additional Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue would take us through th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d admitted at least in some cases that they had received other inputs/raw materials required for manufacturing of Gutkha. It is his submission that all the evidences which have been relied upon by the adjudicating authority clearly indicate a well laid down plan which was noticed only after thorough investigation. 10. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. We heard both sides for considerable time on the Stay Petitions till we were unable to go through all the records which were put up before us for considering the Stay Petitions filed by various appellants herein. 11. Since the issue is of clandestine removal, we perused the records of main appellant M/s Yogesh Associates. It is seen from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal disposal of the appeals. At this juncture, prima facie, we find that the main appellant needs to be put to condition for hearing and disposing the appeal. Accordingly, we direct the main appellant M/s Yogesh Associates to deposit an amount of Rs.10 Crores (Rupees Ten Crores only). 12. Now, we take up the various Stay Petitions filed by other appellants. In our view, all these appellants were penalized on the ground that they had abetted the plan executed by the main appellant for clearance of the Gutkha without payment of duty. In our view, the role played by each one of the individuals and the company needs to be appreciated with the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority which, in our view, can be done only at the time of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
