9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 266.41 Ps. approximately, on the yarns manufactured in 1977 was evaded by them. Appellant came into picture in 1979. They came to know about it, later on as nothing was reflected in the provisional balance sheet furnished by old owners to the appellants while taking over the charge of the factory. They are answerable to the above charge, through the Managing Director. Appellant was not aware of it. It was brought to the notice of Collector of Central Excise, which was neglected, and decided the case against the appellant. In the appeal before the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, fine and penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside. Duty liability was confirmed. In the order is was observed that - However, so far as the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise Act. Letter dated 5-1-91 8-1-91 of appellant is not at all considered. Law points raised therein are not dealt with. Para 11 of Tribunal order dated 8-1-88 is not at all taken note of, and impugned order has exceeded the scope of remand. Dealing Company Act, for recovery of Central Excise Act is beyond his powers. Issue was to be decided with reference to Para 11 17 of Tribunal order. Conclusion of Board, that appellant came into picture at later stage on the basis of facts that copies of fresh License were furnished at the time of personal hearing - while setting aside fine and penalty, was not at all taken of, while passing the Impugned order. It is not legal and proper, and requires to be set aside. Sri Arun Chopra, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red into with respect to appellant company, are to be considered to decide the appeal. Board of Central Excise and Customs has confirmed the duty liability on appellant, which is challenged. Order No. 606/87 WRB in ED (T) (BOM) 56/81 dated 8-1-88 of the Tribunal in the present case has raised the issue in Para 9 (i) of the order, arising out of the contention of both sides, for consideration. Whether duty can be demanded from the present appellant in respect of yarn manufactured during the period when the mill was under the management of M/s. Kishanlal Sons (Udyog) Ltd. This issue is dealt with in detail in paras 11 to 13 of the order, after noting the contention of appellant before the adjudicating authority, and its order in para 14 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority has considered and decided in the proper perspective, Remand order was quite exhaustive as to the answer to question No. 1. raised therein, in either way and accordingly decision is given by Collector. Law points raised and case law cited is considered in Para 4 of the Impugned Order, which is an accepted principle. The contention of the appellant that great prejudice is caused in not considering them does not stand to reason, and it is rejected. 4. Now coming to the question of effect of purchase in 1978 of 496 shares by M/s. Radiant Investment (P) Ltd., from M/s. Kishanlal Sons, out of 500 Equity shares of Rs. 400/- each and 250, 9.5% cumulative Redeemable Preference shares of Rs. 400/- each which was the share capital of the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Purchasers prior to completion of sale. Under condition No. 4, Proforma unaudited balance sheet for the period ending 30-6-79 copy was furnished by vendor to purchaser, prior to completion of sale, which is also enclosed to agreement on vendor representing to the purchaser that it reflects true and correct position of financial affairs of the company for the period ending 30-6-79, subject to 3% either way before the agreement of purchase of shares, under condition No. 4. Condition No. 5 is most relevant to the case viz. vendor shall be liable to make good to purchaser under clause (C) undischarged liabilities for Customs, Sales Tax, Income Tax, Super Tax or other taxes on income or other penalty levied or any other tax levied or any other t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant and confirmed the duty demand. Tribunal order dated 8-1-88 has also observed in Para 13 of the order that if the Collector finds that there had been only a change of management, then there is no illegality in the order passed, and the appellant will be liable to pay duty, subject however, to the actual quantification by excluding the weight of the sizing materials. Annexure I and III to the agreement describes the shares and list of books and documents, which clearly shows only the entrustment of management of company, and not the transfer of assets of the company in toto to confer ownership of the company on the appellant. So the contention of the appellant, that he has become new owner of the company cannot be upheld. It is rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
