Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 1096 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (11) TMI 1096 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - SSI exemption - clubbing of clearances - Held that: - It is clear that the Original Authority had passed a lengthy order examining various evidences gathered during the investigation by the Department. We have perused the findings recorded in the said impugned order. We note that the Original Authority has recorded that the appellants agreed for clubbing of the clearances of ANG and DGW for the purpose of duty liability. However, it appears that they .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s necessary in order to fix the duty liability on a legally sustainable basis. In fact as noted above, the confirmation of duty demand is not against any particular assessee. The order simply states that an amount of ₹ 45,32,926/- is confirmed. Further, a penalty of equivalent amount was jointly imposed on the three units. The amount is not quantified for individual unit for the offences committed by them. Such joint liability of duty and penalty as held by the Original Authority is not le .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I. Three appeals are by companies /firms and two are by individuals. 2. The 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 ava .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ses of these three units. On completion of the investigation, proceedings were initiated against these units and Shri Lokesh Pathak and Shri Rajiv Pathak by way of issue of show cause notice on 29.04.2005. The show cause notice proposed central excise duty demand of ₹ 58,66,596/- jointly and severally from these three units. Further, proposals were made for confiscation of seized goods and Indian currency and also for imposition of penalty on the units as well as the invidividuals. The cas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ersonal penalties were also imposed on Shri Lokesh Pathak and Shri Rajiv Pathak. The goods seized were confiscated with an option to redeem the payment of various fines. Seized currency were also confiscated by the Government. 4. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the proceedings against the appellants initiated by the department as confirmed by the Original Authority is totally devoid of merit. The Department have not made up their mind regarding the person from whom the du .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g penalty of equivalent amount jointly and severally on three legal entitles is legally not sustainable. He relied on the various decided case to support his contention. 5. Ld.AR reiterated the findings of the Original Authority. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records including the written submissions. 7. It is clear that the Original Authority had passed a lengthy order examining various evidences gathered during the investigation by the Department. We have perused the f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as a single entity for the purpose of SSI exemption. Here, we note that there is no clear finding as to what is the legal status of these three units, which of them are dummy units and which are genuine manufacturing units. This is necessary in order to fix the duty liability on a legally sustainable basis. In fact as noted above, the confirmation of duty demand is not against any particular assessee. The order simply states that an amount of ₹ 45,32,926/- is confirmed. Further, a penalty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version