Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (4) TMI 323

firmed against the appellants by the Lower Adjudicating Authority and Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that states in para 8 thereof about in the show cause notice C.No. 7676-7678 dated 07.07.2005 decided in the case of M/S ICEBERG GOODS LTD., SHRI DHEERAJ GOEL, DIRECTOR, SHRI R.S. GUPTA, GENERAL MANAGER VERSUS CCE, ROHTAK [2015 (9) TMI 875 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - The present Appeal before this Tribunal is pertaining to the same period and the fact that the Adjudication by the Tribunal has already been done for the earlier period 2003-04 and 2004-05 and the amount is also same i.e. ₹ 22,67,593/- this amount included the demand for period April to July 2005 as well. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the department had no .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

appellant was also having two others units, one at Jaipur (Rajasthan) and another at Vasai (Maharashtra) in the same name as those of main appellants, they were also manufacturing their own product under brand name Kwality Kwencher . The other branded product under Kingfisher brand was for other company i.e. M/s UB Beer Ltd. At Vasai plant, they were manufacturing packed performs (3926.90) and bottle closers/caps (3923.90) whereas in respect of Vasai unit, the appellant surrendered their Registration Certificate on 31.03.2005. During the financial year, they were availing the SSI Exemption from the payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dt. 01.03.2003 as amended from time to time available upto first clearance value .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

nalty of ₹ 19,17,821/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The said amount should also be recovered. 4. I further impose a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- (One Lac) each on Sh. Dheeraj Goel and Sh. R.S. Gupta, General Manager Finance & Accounts of the party under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 which should also be recovered. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order has uphold the order of the Lower Adjudicating Authority. Against the said order, the appellants are before us in the appeal. 4. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the similar issue pertaining to ear .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ellant pleaded that the two units of the appellant situated in Jaipur and Vasai were paying duty and availing Cenvat credit. The present order relating to Rohad unit is not sustainable in law as they have operated as per the condition No. (i) of para 2 of the Notification No. 8/2003-C.E.. There is no condition about the status of other units of the manufacturer. He also contended that the Jaipur unit was set up in October, 2003 and Vasai unit in December, 2003 whereas the Rohad unit (present appellant unit) was set up in July, 2002 they have exercised the option for availing SSI exemption in April, 2003. At that time, the other two units were not in existence. The Original Authority as well as Appellate Authority proceeded against them in t .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||