Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (9) TMI 373

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rds the setting aside of penalty against the said M/s. Beekay Industries having become final and binding, the said course of action would therefore also follow in respect of the Respondents above named. This Court cannot, in the above Appeals, whilst considering the issue of penalty which has been set aside against the Respondents above named, record inconsistent findings. Resultantly, question of law framed would have to be answered in favour of the Respondents and against the Revenue. - 53 of 2005, 55 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2010 - V.C. Daga and R.M. Savant, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Mrs. S.I. Shah, i/by Shri Rajendra Kumar APP , for the Appellant. [Judgment per : R.M. Savant, J.]. - The above Appeals challenge the or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r M/s. Lalit Products inasmuch as they had supplied the raw material, components and packaging material for the manufacture of Flex Box? 3. The factual matrix involved in the above Appeals can be stated thus :- The penalty imposed against the Respondents above named has got its genesis in a case booked against one M/s. Lalit Products situated at P-Plot, Vivek Industries Estate, Walbhut Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai. A case was registered against the said Lalit Products alleging that they had manufactured and cleared excisable goods viz. Mixer Grinder and Flex Box, affixed with brand Cellonex, Nandi, Pilot, Kundan, Vinay, etc. not owned by them but belonging to others without payment of appropriate central excise duty. A show cause notic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re, a penalty of Rs. Five lakhs on the Respondents above named as also redemption fine of Rs. Two Thousand was imposed on the Respondents in Appeal No. 53 of 2005 i.e. M/s. Goodwill Electricals. The relevant extracts in so far as the Respondents M/s. Goodwill Electricals, M/s. Vinay Electricals and M/s. Beekay Industries from the order in original are reproduced herein under :- M/s. Goodwill Electricals, Jamnagar are another distributor of M/s. Lalit Products, Mumbai for 'Cellonex' brand mixer grinders and M/s. Ranjit Freight Carriers were engaged to transport goods from Mumbai to the said distributors. Statement of Shri Bharat V. Oza of M/s. Ranjit Freight and Shri M.A. Khatri, partner in M/s. Goodwill Electricals recorded under sec. 14 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt about job work for the above goods with brand name of the suppliers. Since the investigations into this case has clearly established the role of M/s. Lalit Products in the manufacture of 'Cellonex' brand mixer grinders (brand name belonging to other person) and their clandestine removals, it can be remotedly believed that in the above case. M/s. Lalit Products restricted their role to assembly of flex box on job work basis. Hence, statements of Shri Vinay A. Chedda and Gautam J. Jani cannot be raised upon and do not absolve their firms from imposition of penalty under rule 209A of Central Excise Rules as proposed in the show cause notice." 5. Being aggrieved by the said order in original the Respondents herein as well as the said Lalit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Appeals though served. 7.It is an undisputed fact that concurrent findings of fact have been recorded against all the co-noticees in the order-in-original and the order of the First Appellate Authority to the effect that they had aided and abetted the contravention of payment of excise duty by the said Lalit Products and were therefore similarly circumstanced. All the said co-noticees were the distributors of the said Lalit Products. The said findings of fact are, therefore, one and indivisible. During the course of hearing, we were informed by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appeal filed as against the same order dated 12-8-2004 qua M/s. Beekay Industries has been rejected on account of the non-removal of the office obj .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates