9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brief facts of the case are that M/s.Art-N-Glass Pvt. Ltd. (ANG) are engaged in the manufacture of various types of glass articles like wash basin, bowls, centre table, dining table, etc. and are also engaged in other processes like edging, etching, frosting, bevelling, etc. on the looking glass. Shri Lokesh Pathak is Managing Director of the company. They were availing SSI exemtion under notification no.8/2001-CE dated 1.3.2001. 3. M/s. Designer Glass India (DGW) is a proprietary concern owned by Shri M.P. Pathak. They were engaged in the manufacture of glass bowls and wash basins. M/s. Nangoli Glass and Plywood Co. (NGPC) is another propriety concern owned by Shri Lokesh Pathak, said to be engaged in the trading of glass articles. The o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity is totally devoid of merit. The Department have not made up their mind regarding the person from whom the duty demand has to be made. It is not legally sustainable to club the turnover of different units and demand duty without identifying the unit from whom such duty is payable. It is not clear as which unit manufactured all excisable goods and others being dummy creations. There is no categorical assertion or finding to this effect by the lower authority. Though the ld. Counsel submitted that they have a strong case on merit, he emphasized that the whole process of confirming duty demand and imposing penalty of equivalent amount jointly and severally on three legal entitles is legally not sustainable. He relied on the various decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y them. Such joint liability of duty and penalty as held by the Original Authority is not legally sustainable. The order lacks legal clarity and has to be set aside on this ground alone. In this connection, we refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gajanan Fabrics Distributors 1997 (92) ELT 451(SC) and the Tribunal s decision in the case of Chemicos 2012 (281) ELT 121(Tribunal-Delhi) and in the case of Rajaesh Kumar Agarwal -2015(321) ELT 313(Tribunal-Delhi), wherein it was held as below:- "8. It is also seen that duty demand of Rs. 46,51,87,192/- has been confirmed against PTPL and GTC Industries Ltd. jointly or severally and similarly penalty of equal amount has also been imposed on them under Rules 9(2), 52A, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
