9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onerate vide order dated 27/07/2001, wherein he had confirmed a duty demand of Rs.70,147/- on the appellant along with interest thereon and also imposed a penalty of equivalent amount. The said order-in-original further confirms a demand of Rs.19,870/- which was wrongly availed by the appellant as deemed credit. The said order imposes a penalty of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.15,000/- on the partner of the appellant company further penalty of Rs.15,000/- each on the proprietor of M/s.Kishanlal & Sons, partner of M/s.K.P. Synthetics, the authorised signatory of M/s. N. Devraj & Co. under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Penalty of Rs.5,000/- on Manager and authorised signatory of M/s.Kamal Synthetics and a penalty of Rs.15,000/- on Sudha Silk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 09/10/92, the merchant manufacturers had to be proceeded against and the appellants cannot be held liable for the misdemeanor on the part of the merchant manufacturers as the appellant has no means or facility nor any legal obligation to verify the accuracy/correctness of the declaration about the value and/or construction of the fabrics, given by the merchant manufacturers. Further, the merchant manufactures had admitted that they had intentionally filed incorrect price declarations. It was also urged that even though the investigation took place in 1998, the show-cause notice was issued to them only on 13/02/2001 i.e., after a lapse of 32 months and, therefore, the demand is time barred. In support of their contention they have pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direct the appellants to produce further evidence as to the correctness of values declared by them. It is also on record that the merchant manufacturers in their statements had clearly admitted that they had undervalued the grey fabrics and took full responsibility for the same. 5. In the case of CCE, Mumbai Vs. Lajya Dyeing & Bleaching Works 2008 (224) ELT 345 (SC), the apex Court had held that for the misdeclaration of the merchant manufacturers extended period is not invocable in the absence of allegation or finding that assessee job worker knew or deliberately failed to declare the correct cost of grey fabrics and there is no legal requirement for the processors to verify the correctness of the declaration furnished by the owne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
