9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etorship firm of proprietor Shri Dashrathbhai Parekh and Shrimati Hansaben Parekh were functioning and Shri Dashrathbhai Parekh is authorized signatory of M/s. Ridhi Siddhi Enterprise and engaged in manufacturing of road construction equipments. The department has, after investigation, issued show cause notice dated 16.03.2007 demanding duty of Rs.42,39,870/- on clearance value for the period from 2001-02 to 2005-06 clubbing the clearance value of both the units along with interest and proposed penalty on both the units, and also proposed penalty on M/s. Ridhi Siddhi Enterprise under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant has submitted reply dtd.25.07.2007 wherein, documents such has Balance Sheet, PAN, Income Tax and Sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observation in the remand order by the Tribunal, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered issues such as limitation, dispute about the service of show cause notice such as date was not put in the signature of the adjudicating authority. He submits that the demand is also beyond 5 years which has also not been considered by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that since there is serious dispute about the service of the show cause notice, the period for demand of 5 years shall be computed from the actual date of service of the notice for last 5 years. He further submits that the appellant have submitted all the records showing the separate entity of both the units such as Balance Sheet, Income Tax return, PAN, Bank Account et ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter may be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) once again. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- * Precision Equipment Co., Prem Mansukhani, Bhagubhai Prajapati vs. Commissioner of C.E.- Ahmedabad-I 2024 (4) TMI 958- CESTAT Ahmedabad * Pap Flon Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of C. Ex. Ahmedabad-I 2022 (381) E.L.T. 500 (Tri-Ahmd.) * Commissioner, GST (East), New Delhi vs. Unitech Containers Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (358) E.L.T. 99 (Del.) * Commissioner, GST (East), New Delhi vs. Unitech Containers Pvt. Ltd. 2024 (388) E. L.T. 681 (S.C.) * Varun B. Corporation vs. C.C.E. & S.T.- Surat-I vide Final Order No.10128-10131/2024 * Premier Heavy Engineering Coprn. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2016 (337) E. L.T. 332 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals), to re-assess the evidences as brought out on record and also referred to specifically in the grounds of appeal and thereafter apply the principle of law to the said evidences while considering the eligibility of SSI exemption Notification No.8/2003-CE, dt.01.03.2003 to the Respondent. 5. Revenue's appeal is allowed by way of remand." From the above finding of this Tribunal, it can be seen that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to particularly, look into the financial transaction, day to day management etc. to arrive at conclusion of relationship between the two units. It was also observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) is supposed to reassess the evidences as brought out on record and also referred to specifically in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
