9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of case are that as per the Show Cause Notice, dated 23/08/2007, the respondent-assessee a manufacturer of bangles, branded auto headlamp glasses & glass shells etc., was availing SSI Exemption and was registered with the Central Excise Department. The glass shells of headlamp/auto headlamps were classifiable under Sub-heading No.7011.90 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which are chargeable to appropriate duty of excise. Revenue inspected the premises of the respondent-assessee on 11/02/2005 and found that the unit was engaged in manufacture of branded auto headlamp glasses of other parties in the names of Lumax, Linax, Autopol, K.K. Max etc. The production activity was not going on. There was a stock of branded/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isal Auto Lens, Firozabad was their major purchaser of branded headlamp glasses. They have also supplied branded headlamp glasses of Lumax, Topex, Ashoka, D.K. Max, Jagan and Autopal brands to M/s Jaisal Auto Lens, that the Central Excise duty was not paid on the branded headlamp glasses manufactured by M/s AGW and cleared to M/s Jaisal Auto Lens, Firozabad & M/s Max International, New Delhi as per sale book register (2004-05). They sold branded headlamp glasses as unbranded headlamp glasses without payment of duty and he was ready to deposit the duty on all such clearance of branded headlamp glasses sold by them as unbranded headlamp glasses. In his further statement, dated 12/07/2006, the said partner, Shri Dinesh Kumar Johary, further st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith further proposal to appropriate from the tax already paid with interest and further penalty was proposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 & penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, was also proposed on the partner, Shri Dinesh Kumar Johary and their buyers, namely, M/s Jaisal Auto Lens, Firozabad & M/s Max International, New Delhi. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated on contest and the proposed demand was confirmed and appropriated and further penalty was imposed of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the respondent firm AGW. Further, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the partner, Shri Dinesh Kumar Johary. Further, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on M/s Jaisal Auto Lens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to headlamp without payment of duty firstly on 14/02/2005, secondly on 12/07/2006 wherein he calculated the proximate quantity of clearance valued at Rs. 19,06,250/- for the period from January, 2003 to November, 2004 and prior to that respondent-assessee had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- vide challan dated 15/06/2005. Further, Shri Dinesh Kumar Johary disagreed with the statement of the Shri Daljit Singh, propritor of M/s Jaisal Auto Lens, further emphasizing that their unit - AGW had closed their production activity with effect from 11/11/2004, further reiterated that they have approximately sold 6,25,000 pieces of branded auto headlamp glasses valued at Rs. 19,06,250/- on which Excise duty including cess comes to Rs. 3,11,100/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
