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

2014 (3) TMI 712

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... irect and positive evidence in support of the allegations levelled against the appellant No.1. In view of the various evidence produced by the appellants, I hold that M/s. Pearl Pack was an independent manufacturing unit prior to 31.03.2005 and Central Excise duty on the clearances effected by M/s. Pearl Pack cannot be demanded from appellant No. 1 for the period prior to 31.03.2005 and demand of Rs. 23,16,658/- is set aside. Consequently, penalty of Rs. 23,16,658/- imposed under Rule 25 read with Section 11 AC ibid by the adjudicating authority is also set aside. As against the entire evidences taken into account by the appellant authority, the revenue has not rebutted the same with production of effective counter evidences. They have m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed to be confirmed against them by taking into account the entire clearances made by the respondent as also by M/s. Pearl Pack during the period 2003-2006. The said proceedings resulted in confirmation of demand of duty of Rs. 29,63,173/- as also imposition of penalty of identical amount upon the respondent, apart from imposing penalties on the other induces. 4. On appeal Commissioner (Appeals) held that there are sufficient evidences on record that M/s. Pearl Pack was working as an individual unit prior to 31.03.05 and their factory was closed only with effect from 01.04.2005. The said fact was also accepted by the respondent. Accordingly he confirmed the duty of Rs. 6,46,515/- and imposed 25% penalty of Rs. 1,61,629/-. 5 For better .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ,515/- and there is no dispute about the same. However, the appellants have challenged the impugned order on the ground that that said position was not true for the period prior to 31.03.2005 for the reasons mentioned by the appellants in the foregoing paragraphs. I find that the appellants have submitted various documentary evidence in support of the fact that M/s. Pearl Pack were in operation at A-64, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi and engaged in the manufacturing of cartons during the period prior to 31.03.2005. I find that Letter dated 15.04.2005 written by Rastriya Mazdoor Vahini Union and Settlement/Receipts dated 9.05.2005 made before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, District North, Ashok Vihar, Phase-IV, Delhi in respect of seven la .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he by the appellants cannot be termed as an afterthought and brushed aside without giving any cognizance to the documentary evidence already on record. Various other manufacturing expenses such as, purchases, machinery repair maintenance, salary and factory rent, conveyance, job charges, dies and design, wages etc. have duly been reflected in the Balance Sheet for the year ended 31.03.2005 filed on 25.10.2005 along with the Income Tax Return for the relevant period. Further, I find that Statements dated 25.09.2006 of Shri Dev Kumar Kucchal, Shri S.P. Sharma, Shri Vijay Kumar Mehta, all Supplier of materials to M/s. Pearl Pack and Shri Dheeraj Abhichandani, Job Worker which were in favour of the appellants and confirmed the fact of manufac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l Pack cannot be demanded from appellant No. 1 for the period prior to 31.03.2005 and demand of Rs. 23,16,658/- is set aside. Consequently, penalty of Rs. 23,16,658/- imposed under Rule 25 read with Section 11 AC ibid by the adjudicating authority is also set aside. However, I uphold the demand of Rs. 6,46,515/- for the period from 01.04.2005/- to 31.03.2006 and also uphold the penalty of an equivalent amount i.e. Rs. 6,46,515/- imposed under Rule 25 read with Section 11 AC ibid. Order of recovery of interest on the duty amount of Rs. 6,46,515/- is also upheld. However, in view of the submission of the appellants that they had deposited the entire amount of Central Excise duty along with interest and penalty within 30 days of the communicat .....

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