9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt), a trading company, placed orders on M/s. AMPL for supply of computer systems of specified configuration. Acting upon these purchase orders, M/s. AMPL manufactured and supplied the goods ordered for, after filing price lists with the department. These clearances were made during November, 1991 to March, 1994, on payment of duty as applicable to Heading 84.71 of the CETA Schedule. The department, after investigations into these transactions, came to the conclusion that M/s. AMPL had supplied semi-finished goods to M/s. ACPL and had under-valued these goods with a view to benefit the buyer, who was found to be related to the seller. It was found that both the companies were controlled and managed by one Shri Chander Kothari. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order : (i) whether after taking into consideration the fact stated above, the order of the Commissioner is a legally correct and proper order, (ii) Whether by an order passed under Section 35C, the Tribunal should set aside or modify the order passed by the Commissioner and pass an order to confirm the full demand under the extended period as raised in SCN and impose suitable penalty considering the gravity of the offence, or pass such other order as may be deemed fit." The present appeal of the department is pursuant to the Board's direction. This appeal filed by the same Commissioner contains the following prayer :- "It is therefore prayed that the Order of the Commissioner of Central excise (Adjudication) may be set aside to the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed so many appeals as there were, parties against whom reliefs were sought. In this connection, reliance is placed on the Tribunals decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore v. L.P. Shenoy [2003 (162} E.L.T.297 (Tri.-Bang.)]. Learned SDR has not cited any contra binding judicial authority on the point. 3. After considering the submissions, we find that the Board's review order had directed the Commissioner to file appeals with this Tribunal for reliefs against all the three parties viz. M/s. ACPL, M/s. AMPL and Shri Chander Kothari. As against M/s. ACPL the demand of duty was sought to be revived and as against M/s. AMPL and Shri Chander Kothari, penalties were sought to be imposed. But the Commissioner in this appeal, cit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
