Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (4) TMI 1024

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ding No. 24 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. M/s. Sanjay M. Vyas, Umeta, Distt. Anand is also engaged in the manufacture of Unbranded Bidis but does not hold Central Excise Registration for the purpose. The officers of the Central Excise Preventive had intercepted a matador van bearing Registration No. GJ 7H 649 on 01.06.98, which was the Budget day in the morning. On enquiry it was ascertained that the matador was carrying 16,17,000 Bidis in 33 bags bearing the brand name of Asal Deepak Vavta Chhap of M/s Vyas Shantilal Jethalal and Sons Co., Umeta (M/s Vyas S. J. & Sons hereinafter). On being asked the driver Shri Himmatbhai Harmanbhai Solanki stated that the said goods were loaded from the factory premises of M/s Vyas S. J. & Sons Co. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n 01.06.1998 should not be confiscated under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. (ii) Matador No. GJ-7H-649 seized on 01.06.1998 should not be confiscated under Section 115 of Customs Act, 1962. (iii) Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 10,510.50, Rs. 8,80,610/-, Rs. 43,635/-, Rs. 3,455/- and Rs. 11,13,649/- should not be recovered under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. (iv) Penalty should not be imposed under Section 11AC and under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. (v) Interest should not be charged under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. Shri Mahendrabhai S. Vyas, Shri Vadilal J. Shah and Shri Anilkumar S. Shah are also required to show cause to the said Commissioner as to why pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ,000/- is appropriated towards the value of the Matador in terms of the conditions of B-11 Bond out of the security deposit of Rs. 50,000/-. I order refund of the remaining amount to the assessee forthwith. (iii) I confirm the C. Ex. duty of Rs. 10,511/- under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A (1) of CEA, 1944. (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,511/- (Rupees Ten Thousand five hundred Eleven Only) under Section 11 AC of CEA, 1944 on M/s. Shantilal Jethalal & Sons, Umeta. (v) I impose a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) on Shri Mahendrabhai Shantilal Vyas, partner of M/s. Vyas shantilal Jethalal & Sons. Co. Umeta under Rule 209 A of CER, 2004. (vi) I vacate the demand of Rs. 8,80,610/-, Rs. 43,635/- and Rs. 3455/- issu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . & Sons. Co. of Umeta. (ii) I order confirmation and recovery of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 11,13,649/- under proviso (1) to Section 11 A of the CEA, 1944 read with Rule 9 (2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 from M/s. Sanjay M. Vyas of Umeta. (iii) I also order to recover the interest at the prescribed rate from M/s Vyas S. J. & sons Co., and M/s. Sanjay M. Vyas under Section 11 AB of the CEA, 1944 on the Central Excise duty confirmed above against the respective parties. (iv) I impose penalty of Rs. 3,95,149/- (from Oct 96) under the provisions of Section 11 AC of the CEA, 1944 on M/s. Vyas S. J. & Sons Co., Umeta. (v) I impose penalty of Rs. 6,17,461/- under the provisions of Section 11 Ac of the CEA, 1944 on M/s Sanjay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mpugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that in the remand order given by the Tribunal, the only respondent in this set of appeals was M/s Vyas S. J. & Sons Co., Umeta. We find force in the contention of the Ld. Advocate that the order pertaining to M/s Sanjay M. Vyas, Umeta and Shri Mahendra S. Vyas had attained finality as the department did not file any appeal. It is also clear from the remand order that no appeal was filed against the other appellants except for M/s Vyas S. J. & Sons Co., Umeta. While the remand was undoubtedly open, the remand direction was limited to the adjudication pertaining to M/s. Vyas S. J. & Sons Co., Umeta only. In that situation, the adjudicating authority has indeed gone beyond t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates