TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Receipts, which is not related to it. The dispute between the parties as well as order of the learned Tribunal is purely based upon appreciation of facts and keeping in view the nature of dispute, no question of law arises. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - CEA No. 116/2018, 117/2018 - - - Dated:- 22-4-2019 - S.C. Sharma And Virender Singh JJ. For the Appellants : Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel For the Respondent : Shri Sumit Neema, learned senior counsel with Shri Gagan Parashar, learned counsel ORDER PER VIRENDER SINGH J:- 1. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved, both the Central Excise Appeals are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. Facts of CEA No.116/2018 are narrated hereunder. 2. Being aggrieved by the final order No. A/51115-51116 dated 26.03.2018 passed by Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, West Block No.2, R.K Puram, New Delhi in Central Excise Appeal (CEA) No. E/50146/2018, the Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he basis of facts and evidences on record, a show cause notice was issued vide C.No.DGCEI/AZU/36-26-2002 dated 23.04.2003 to M/s R.S. Company and M/s R.S. Industries, Indore demanding Central Excise duty of ₹ 39,44,21,052/- and ₹ 2,82,78,948/- respectively along with interest and imposition of penalty. The respondent challenged this notice and the Commissioner, Central Excise, Indore vide Order-in-Original No. 09/Commr/CEX/IND/2004 dated 26.02.2004 quashed it and dropped the entire demand as well as penal action. 6. This order of the Commissioner dated 26.02.2004, was challenged by the department in appeals No. E/1025/2005 before the CESTAT, New Delhi. The appeal was partly allowed vide final order A/257/2012-EX(BR) dated 06.03.2012. The learned Tribunal observed that the evidence showing unaccounted receipt of scented tobacco as evidenced by the records recovered from M/s Sarita Roadways in maintainable. This evidences is supported by goods evidence of clandestine procurement of packing materials and also clandestine removal as is evidenced by purchase register of Goyal Company though these entries do not cover all the clandestine removal it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Lorry Receipts and raise the duty demand pertaining to the Lorry Receipts in the name of M/s R.S. Companies/Shri Natwarlal Sharda only and decide the penalty accordingly. This order is the subject matter of the present appeal. 12. The grounds for challenge taken by the appellants are that there is only a slight change in the name of different consignors mentioned in the LRs brought on record, but their addresses are same, therefore, they are same business entities. This insignificant change in the name cannot be considered as concrete evidence to re-quantify the demand. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that in their earlier final order dated 06.03.2012 [A/257/2012-EX(BR)] it has been held that the evidence showing unaccounted receipts of scented tobacco as evidenced by the records recovered from M/s Sarita Roadways is maintainable and later on the High Court vide judgment dated 08.02.2017 also held that there was sufficient evidence about the manufacture and removal of goods and the department has rightly drawn inference about clandestine manufacturing and removal. It is further submitted that in the impugned order, the Adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudicating authority can verify and raise the demand accordingly. Therefore, neither there was any scope nor necessity to interfere in the order of learned CESTAT. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 16. While passing the impugned order, the learned CESTAT has observed that all the companies mentioned in the recovered Lorry Receipts are different entities, therefore, the respondents cannot be held liable for any Lorry Receipts, which is not related to it. Para nos.9 to 13 of the impugned judgment are relevant which reads thus:- 9. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that all business entities mentioned in the Lorry Receipts are independent business entities as their assessment, registration etc. were separate. In the eyes of law, each firm/business entity is a separate business entity as its assessment was separate. 10. When it is so, then we are of the view that L.Rs which are in the name of M/s.R.S. Company only will have to be adjudicated for the purpose of making the duty demand from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
