9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"), during the pendency of the appeal. 2. Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate for the applicant, invited the attention of the court to the show cause notice dated 2nd March 1994 issued by the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara to submit that such show cause notice was issued against eight parties including three firms. It was pointed out that in the show cause notice it has been alleged that the noticees No. 2 and 3 are dummy parties. It was submitted that M/s. Jolly Electrical Industries was a partnership firm comprised of three partners out of whom two of the partners had passed away on 16th November, 1993, prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, and hence, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties viz. M/s. Jolly Enterprises and M/s. Kinitronics, and in support thereof referred to various decisions. However, by an order dated 25th November, 2004, the Tribunal dismissed the restoration application on the ground that this was only a case of remand and the contents of the application for restoring the appeal do not disclose any reason as to why such order should not be passed. It was submitted that thereafter by order in original dated 6th February, 2009, demand of central excise duty and SED amounting to Rs. 89,83,376.40/- came to be confirmed against M/s. Jolly Electrical Industries; a penalty of Rs. 80,00,000/- also came to be imposed on M/s. Jolly Electrical Industries; confiscation of land, plant, building, machinery etc. was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e finding recorded by the Tribunal that in view of the fact that in the cause title there was reference to M/s. Jolly Electrical Industries and others, all the parties impleaded in the show cause notice are also parties in the appeal, is perverse to the record of the case. 2.3 Mr. Dave further referred to various decisions of the Tribunal in Elemec Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, 2003 (158) ELT 595 (Tribunal - Delhi); Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara v. Tightwell Fastners, 2008 (230) ELT 163 (Tribunal - Ahmedabad), to submit that different Tribunals have consistently held that in case where the revenue had filed only one appeal against the appellant unit and no appeal had been filed against the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
