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

2019 (2) TMI 1235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as not authorized the job worker M/s SP associates to discharge the Excise Duty. Therefore, the M/s Ayush Apparels was legally liable for payment of duty even though he did not manufacture the goods and the job worker has manufactured the goods. Accordingly, there is no doubt that the principal M/s Ayush Apparels is liable to pay the duty. As regard the submission of Ld. Counsel that the manufacturer alone has to discharge the duty, it has no force for the reason that as per section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944, it is provided that “there shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed a duty of excise”. As per this provision, the Government has power to prescribe the manner of levy and collection of duty. In the case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was confirmed under section 11A against M/s Ayush Apparels, equal amount of penalty was imposed. Interest at the prescribed rate was also demanded under section 11AB and various other penalties were imposed, including a penalty of ₹ 1 lakh on Shri Hiren K Agarwal, proprietor of M/s Ayush Apparel. Being aggrieved by OIO, assessee filed appeal before the Commr. (A), wherein while disposing the appeal, the Ld. Commr. (A) has extended the benefit of cum duty price to the assessee and penalty of ₹ 1 lakh imposed on Shri Hiren K Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s Ayush Apparels was set aside. Therefore, being aggrieved by the same common impugned order, the assessee filed appeal for contesting the demand penalty and interest. Revenue also fil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ilable which is beyond the control of assessee, the SSI exemption cannot be denied. He further submits that since in the normal course, the manufacturer is supposed to pay the duty, the assessee was under the bonafide belief that job worker is supposed to pay the duty. Therefore, demand for extended period is not sustainable. Consequently, penalty is also not sustainable. 2.1 As regard the Revenue s appeal, he submits that Ld. Commr. (A) has rightly extended the benefit of cum duty price by relying on the Hon ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. 2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC). As regard the grounds of appeal of Revenue that two separate appeals should have been filed, one by proprietorship concern and the other by proprieto .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... facture the goods and the job worker has manufactured the goods. Accordingly, there is no doubt that the principal M/s Ayush Apparels is liable to pay the duty. As regard the submission of Ld. Counsel that the manufacturer alone has to discharge the duty, it has no force for the reason that as per section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944, it is provided that there shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed a duty of excise . As per this provision, the Government has power to prescribe the manner of levy and collection of duty. In the case of readymade garments, the Government has prescribed the manner by way of Rule 7AA in the Central Excise Rule, 1944. Therefore, by this specific provision even though in normal course, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the assessee by the Adjudicating authority. 4.1 As regard the Revenue s appeal, we find that the ground of the Revenue is that against Order In Original, M/s Ayush Apparels and Hiren K Agarwal were supposed to file two appeals. We do not agree with this proposal for the reason that M/s Ayush Apparels being the proprietorship concern and Hiren K Agarwal proprietor, thereof, are one and the same. Therefore, being one person only one appeal filed before the Commr. (A) is correct and legal. Accordingly, the penalty dropped on Shri Hiren K Agarwal is sustained. In the same appeal, dropping the penalty against M/s SP associated was also challenged. However, we find that Revenue has not made M/s SP associates as respondent in their appeal. .....

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