9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to M/s Hem Agro Industries Ltd for the period from 1993-94 to 1997-98. The impugned order restricted the interest under section 11AB to the duty liability of Rs. 4,12,240 and penalty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 to Rs. 4,12,240 being equivalent to duty amount liable from 28th September 1996 when these provisions came into force. Penalty under rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was restricted only to appellant and limited to Rs. 50,000. All other penalties imposed by the original authority were set aside. 2. This is the second round of appeal before us; on the former occasion, the matter was remanded back to first appellate authority who, having rejected appeals against the order-in-original on grounds of non-comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat with the two lower authorities having held that the units are liable to be clubbed, the possession of brand by the appellant cannot be denied merely to deprive the benefit of concessional slabs available under the exemption notification. 5. We have heard Learned Counsel for appellant and Learned Authorized Representative. 6. The appellant claims to be a job-worker for the second unit M/s Hem Agro Industries in addition to manufacturing tractor-trailors on its own account. Revenue has its own reservations about this claim. We also find it unusual that, despite a clear finding that the two units have been artificially segregated to take advantage of the exemption available to small scale units, no effort has been put in by either of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es appears to be justifiable in law. 8. The claim of the appellant to ownership of the brand Ishan arising from the finding that clearances should be clubbed does not appear to rest on sound foundation. That clearances are to be clubbed is the finding consequent upon the lack of evidence that M/s Hem Agro Industries is devoid of wherewithal to manufacture; hence, the manufactured product of the appellant is entirely attributed to appellant for levy of duty. The ownership of the brand remains with M/s Hemraj Agro Industries irrespective of the finding that the entire manufacturer is effected by the appellant. 9. Appellant cites the availability of the job-work notifications to put forth the argument that there was no ground for invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
