9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to as the "assessee") a partnership firm was engaged in the manufacture of "Lift Winding Machine unit and parts thereof" falling under Ch 84 and 85 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1995. On 7.6.2005 the Central Excise officers visited the factory premises of the assessee and the premises of two other proprietorship firms namely M/s Leo Engineers and M/s Eletech Industries. After examining the records and documents, the Central Excise officers were in the opinion that the clearance value of the other two units would be clubbed with the assessee. They have calculated the demand of duty Rs. 13,84,180/- for the period 2004-05. The Ld Advocate submits that in order to avoid legal complexity and further litigation, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty can be imposed on the partner as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pravin N Shah vs CESTAT, Ahmedabad - 2014(305)ELT.480 (Guj). It is also contended that the Revenue held that the other units are dummy and therefore no penalty can be imposed on the dummy units. He relied upon the following cases: 1. Umiya Ceramics vs CCE, Rajkot - 2007(211)ELT.500 (Tri.Ahmd) 2. CCE, Kanpur vs Auto India - 2007(213)ELT.436 (Tri.Del) 4. On the other hand, the Ld Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the Central Excise Officers detected the irregularity and thereafter they have paid the duty and therefore imposition of penalty are justified. He fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the penalty cannot be imposed on the dummy units and therefore Revenue cannot impose the penalty indirectly on the proprietor of the proprietorship firm. Hence imposition of penalty on the said two proprietors of the proprietorship firm cannot be sustained. 6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is modified to the extent the demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty on the assessee is upheld. As the assessee already paid penalty 25% of the duty alongwith the entire amount of duty and interest before issuance of show cause notice, they are entitled the option as provided under Section 11AC of the Act 1944 and there is no need to pay the balance amount of penalty subject to verification of deposit of Rs. 17,72,000.00, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
