9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating authority has confirmed the Central Excise duty demand of Rs. 4,61,64,018/- along with interest thereon and also imposing equivalent amount of penalties on the main appellant M/s Fasttrack Packers Pvt. Ltd. He has imposed a penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs each on the 3 directors of the main appellant namely Shri R.R. Gholap, shri Sachin S Palod and Shri Milind S Palod under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each on the 3 C&F Agent namely M/s Vandana Enterprises, M/s Adipranav Agency and M/s. Rajlaxmi Agency under the provisions of the said Rule 26. He has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 crore each on M/s Sargam Retails Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Shri Rajesh O Malpani under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of sale and marketing of excisable goods i.e. tobacco products manufactured by M/s Fasttrack Packers Pvt. Ltd. who was authorized to manufacture both branded unmanufactured and manufactured tobacco in the brand name of 'Gai Chhap Zarda' and 'Badshsh Khaini' and the amounts received on account of unaccounted sale of Badshah Khaini for the years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 amounted to Rs. 5.8 crore. The department was of the view that since Sargam Retail Pvt. Ltd. (SRPL in short) is a major wholesale dealer of the main appellant herein, i.e., Fasttrack Packers Pvt. Ltd. (FTPL in short) and the receipt pertains to sale of Badshah Khaini, the said amount of Rs. 5.8 crore received by SRPl should be added to the assessable value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old through the C&F agents namely M/s Vandana Enterprises, Adipranav Agency and Rajlaxmi Agency. Further, an amount of Rs. 7,57,569/- has been confirmed towards excise duty demand in respect of the sales made through Rajendra Trading Company, a dealer of M/s FTPL on the ground that the appellant received sum of Rs. 50,92,000/- from the said dealer over and above the value declared in the invoices issued. The learned Counsel submits that there cannot be two parallel proceedings on the same transaction, one under the Finance Act, 1994 and another under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Either the transaction is a service transaction or it is a Central Excise transaction; it cannot be both at the same time. He further submits that the 3 directors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant, falling within the jurisdiction of Aurangabad Commissionerate, demand was made in respect of the same transaction for an amount of Rs. 33 lakhs (approx.) paid to the appellant's unit at Aurangabad and the duty demand in that respect was set aside by the lower appellate authority vide Order-in-Appeal No. AV(4)271/2014 dated 6.1.2014. In these circumstances, the demand of duty from the appellant cannot sustain. Accordingly, he pleads to grant of stay. 4. The ld. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 5.1 From the records of the case, it is seen that the revenue has undertaken two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
