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

2015 (8) TMI 635

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e specific case of the department that the clearances of all these units and the proprietory concerns should be clubbed together for the purpose of denying the benefit of notification. However, the Department can always sustain its allegations, de hors the statement of M.S.Jain, if there are other materials to support its case. Merely because the case of M.S. Jain has not been appealed against, it does not, and would not, dilute the case of the Department. - Tribunal was clearly in error in holding that merely because no appeal has been filed against M.S. Jain, all the other appeals cannot be maintained - Decided in favour of Revenue. - CMA Nos. 924 to 944 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 26-6-2015 - R Sudhakar And K B K Vasuki, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Santhanaraman For the Respondent : Mr Sankararaman for M/s S Venkatachalam JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Sudhakar, J.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in allowing the appeals filed by the assessee, the Revenue/appellant is before this Court by filing these appeals, 21 in number. These appeals were admitted by this Court, on 11.08.2005, on the following substantial question of law .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Shri. S.K. Jain Shri.D.K. Jain 5. M/s. Nannilam Silicates Pvt. Ltd. Shri. P.K. Jain Shri.Adish Jain 6. M/s. Sunrise Silicates Pvt. Ltd. Smt. Manju Jain and Shri. Sanjeev Kumar Jain 7. M/s. Super Silicates Pvt. Ltd. Shri. B.M. Bharadwaj P.K. Jain 8. M/s. Solar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Shri. S. C. Gupta Shri. S. K. Jain 9. M/s. Pawan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Shri. M.S. Jain Shri.S.K. Jain 10. M/s. Meghna Silicates Pvt. Ltd. Smt. Kiran Jain Shri.Adish Jain 11. M/s. Invincible Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Smt. Kiran Jain, Shri.Adish Jain and Shri. S. Krishnan 12. M/s. Shree Kanagadurga Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. Shri. B.M. Bharadwaj, Shri. Allah Basha and Shri. Anand Sharma 13. M/s. Pavul Silicates Pvt. Ltd. S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... liance on the statement of persons recorded in the course of investigation, the details of which are stated in paragraph 56 of the order of adjudication. (v) In so far as the charge of clubbing the clearances of all concerns, after discussing one after another issue in paragraphs 39 to 47 of his order, the adjudicating authority has held that, 48. In view of the above discussion, the charge of clubbing the clearances of all the 13 private limited companies and 8 proprietory has not been established. (vi) On the second charge of production ratio of Soda Ash to Soluble Glass and Soda Ash to Sodium Silicate, the respective allegations and the defence put forth by the assessee were discussed in paragraphs 49 to 54 of the adjudicating authority's order. The final conclusion arrived at by the said authority is as follows : 55. From the above it is clear that the goods were either cleared on payment of duty or on job work basis under Rule 57 F (4) and therefore, clearances of Sodium Silicate / Soluable Glass without payment of duty is not conclusively established by any documentary evidence except in respect of the clearances made to M/s. Akila Color Company and M/s. Na .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .S. Jain. In the context of defending the invocation of the larger period of limitation in the show cause notices for demanding duty from Shri. M.S. Jain and the 21 units, the Board again focused on the role of Shri. M.S. Jain and held that it was Shri. Jain who suppressed facts to evade payment of duty. All the grounds raised in the review order have found a place in the memoranda of Appeals before us. These appeals are against an order (of the Commissioner) which neither treated Shri.M.S.Jain as manufacturer of the goods nor held him liable for penalty. Yet the Revenue would not prefer appeal against Shri. M.S. Jain. The central figure in the Board's review order has not been arraigned before us by the Revenue. In such circumstances, these appeals cannot be decided on merits. This case stands on a stronger footing than Sompura Ceramics (supra) and Supreme Electrical Appliances (supra) on the maintainability issue. Following the view taken in the said cases, we hold that these appeals of the Revenue, wherein clearances of goods by the 21 units are sought to be clubbed for the purpose of denial of SSI exemption on grounds integrally connected with the role of Shri. M.S. Jain, c .....

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