TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oated by GTC Ltd. fully controlled by them or is an independent entity. The duty demand cannot be confirmed against both M/s GTC Ltd., Mumbai and M/s Chinar Cigarettes (P) Ltd. similarly, penalty under Rule 173Q (1) would be impassable only on the person who has been held to be the actual manufacturer. Joint penalty under Rule 173Q (1) cannot be imposed both on M/s Chinar Cigarettes (P) Ltd. and M/s GTC Ltd - Commissioner before adjudication should ensure that all the relied upon documents as well as non-relied upon documents seized from the appellant and in respect of which there is the request of the appellant for supply, must be supplied and to the extent such documents cannot be supplied, the same cannot be relied upon while confirming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that such joint confirmation of duties and joint imposition of penalty cannot be upheld in the law. For the earlier proceedings against M/s. Golden Tobacco Ltd., such orders passed by the Commissioner already stand set aside. As such, by following the same, we proceed to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner for fresh decision. We also note the appellants grievance that though majority of the relied upon documents, in terms of order of Rajasthan High Court stand supplied to them but there are many relied upon documents, which have not been provided to them. Elaborating on his arguments, learned advocate submits that there are around 10 allegations in the present proceedings and they have been provided with reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings, the Commissioner must give clear findings as to whether M/s Chinar Cigarettes (P) Ltd., Bharatpur, Rajasthan is the manufacturer or M/s GTC Ltd., Mumbai is the manufacturer and the duty demand is to be confirmed only against the person who has been held to be the actual manufacturer based on the finding to whether M/s Chinar Cigarettes (P) Ltd. is an entity floated by GTC Ltd. fully controlled by them or is an independent entity. The duty demand cannot be confirmed against both M/s GTC Ltd., Mumbai and M/s Chinar Cigarettes (P) Ltd. similarly, penalty under Rule 173Q (1) would be impassable only on the person who has been held to be the actual manufacturer. Joint penalty under Rule 173Q (1) cannot be imposed both on M/s Chinar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30th October 2001 and that too without supplying the relied upon documents and without hearing the appellants. Moreover the order bearing the date of 30th October 2011 had been passed by an officer who had retired long time back and could not pass the order on 30th October 2001. It is for this reason that the Tribunal vide final order dated 08/05/12 had remanded the matter to the Commissioner for denovo adjudication. The denovo adjudication has once again been done in such a perfunctory and careless manner that there is no option but to remand the matter for denovo adjudication once again. The only persons to benefit from this avoidable delay of more than 15 years in completion of the adjudication proceedings are the main appellant - M/s G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
