9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame machineries - It is clear that same work force was utilized for manufacturing excisable goods and the goods were cleared using invoices of M/s.Poly Moulds - The appellants have not placed any valid reason why a second firm was shown to have been operating from the same premises with the same machineries and same work force - The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that it was a device to eva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue of show cause notice. Original authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.2,28,205/- and did not impose any penalty on the appellant firm but imposed penalties on the partners of the appellant firm and also on partners of the firm in whose name the goods manufactured by the appellant firm were cleared. The department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking imposition of penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. Vs UOI [2008 (228) ELT 31 (Del.)]. 4. Ld. SDR reiterates the finding and the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the records. The Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a finding that a second unit by name M/s.Poly Moulds was opened in the same premises with the same machineries. It is clear that same work force was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t firm. It is not disputed that appellant firm is the main "party" involved in the evasion. A question may be raised as to whether partners are required to be imposed separate penalties in addition to penalty imposed on the appellant firm and not the other way about. In the present appeal, I am not required to go into whether there was justification for penalties imposed on the partners. Undispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
