9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirm the demand of Central Excise Duty and Education Cess & Higher Education Cess amounting to Rs. 6,68,94,028/- (Rupees Six Crore Sixty Eight Lacs Ninety Four Thousand and Twenty Eight Only) on 13073.529 MT quantity of SS Flats removed clandestinely by M/s. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd., and M/s. Juhi Alloys Ltd., Bharua, Sumerpur, Distt., Hamirpur from their factory during the period from 1-10-2006 to 22-11-2007 under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) I also order for recovery of interest from M/s. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd., and M/s. Juhi Alloys Ltd., Bharua, Sumerpur, Distt., Hamirpur on the amount of confirmed Central Excise duty till the date of actual payment under section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard is made to the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Shanti Processors which was followed in the case of M/s. Saikrupa Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Limited. vide order No. A/1282/WZB/AHD/2009, dated 23-6-2009. 2. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matters for fresh decision and fixing the liability on each and every individual separately. We make it clear that no opinion is being expressed on the merits of the case. Stay petition as also appeals get disposed off in the above manner." 3. It is seen that said order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and their appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in respect of the related persons and even the specific para 14, to which our attention stands drawn by learned Jt. CDR has not dealt with the issue of confirmation of demand jointly and severally against two different persons. Similarly, the Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Meekin Transmission Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2010 (20) S.T.R. 390 (All.) = 2009 (238) E.L.T. 584 (All.)] relied upon by the learned Jt. CDR, nowhere lays down that confirmation of demand against two individual jointly and severally can be upheld. The same deals only with other issues and as such, not relevant for the said purpose. She specifically relied upon para 48 of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. The decisions relied upon by the learned Jt. CDR nowhere permits the Revenue to confirm the duty jointly and severally against two different legal entities, one manufacturing the ingots and the other manufacturing the flats. 6. As we have already observed that there are various decisions laying down that a joint demand and joint penalty cannot be confirmed against the appellants against two persons, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision for fixing the liability of each and every individual separately. We make it clear that we have not gone to the merits of the case and the Revenue as well as assessee are entitled to raise all the legal issues including the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
