9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , without intimation to the Revenue and without getting the licence cancelled by M/s. Varun Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. and reissued in the name of Shri Jariwala, M/s. Varun Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. would remain the manufacturer and hence the central excise assessee. It is not the actual physical manufacturer of the goods which is relevant for the purposes of payment of duty. Inasmuch as Varun continued to remain the central excise licence holder, the goods manufactured in their factory premises are required to be treated as having been manufactured by them irrespective of the internal arrangement between Varun and Jariwala. – Demand and penalty sustainable - E/4/2005 - A/878/2010-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 6-7-2010 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after 3-4-01. He submits that the entire activities were done by Shri Shashikant Popatlal Jariwala and as such the demand of duty confirmed against M/s. Varun Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. is neither justified nor warranted. However on being queried by the Bench as to whether the central excise licence to manufacture the fabrics was in the name of M/s. Varun Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. or in the name of Shri Shashikant Popatlal Jariwala, he fairly agrees that the licence continued to be in the name of M/s. Varun Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. and all the returns etc were being filed by in the name of M/s. Varun Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. However by drawing our attention to Calcutta High Court's decision in the case of Kumar Jagdish CH. Sinha v. CCE, Calcutta reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral excise assessee and manufacturer of the goods. Any internal arrangement between Varan and Shri Jariwala, without intimation to the Revenue and without getting the licence cancelled by M/s. Varun Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. and reissued in the name of Shri Jariwala, M/s. Varun Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. would remain the manufacturer and hence the central excise assessee. It is not the actual physical manufacturer of the goods which is relevant for the purposes of payment of duty. Inasmuch as Varun continued to remain the central excise licence holder, the goods manufactured in their factory premises are required to be treated as having been manufactured by them irrespective of the internal arrangement between Varun and Jariwala. We find no merits i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
