9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld. The matter do not relate to the lifting of veil about which there could be no doubt - it is a case of clandestine removal against two different manufacturing units - M/s. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. was manufacturing ingots/billets which according to the Revenue was being clandestinely transferred to Juhi Alloys Ltd. who were manufacturing flats clandestinely and further clearing clandestinely to various flat and rod manufacturers - Based upon the evidence, it is for the Revenue to confirm the demands in respect of billets against M/s. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. and in respect of flats against Juhi Alloys Ltd. - a joint demand and joint penalty cannot be confirmed against the appellants against two persons – order set aside and the matter remitted b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - (Rupees Six Crore Sixty Eight Lacs Ninety four Thousand and Twenty Eight only) upon M/s. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd., Juhi Alloys Ltd., Bharua, Sumerpur, Distt., Hamirpur under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. As is seen from the above, duty stand confirmed in respect of final product removed clandestinely by M/s. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. and Juhi Alloys Ltd. without segregating what amount stands confirmed against each of them. Similarly, penalties stand imposed upon both the manufacturing unit without any segregation of the amount of penalty imposed on each one of them. At this stage, learned advocate has raised the above preliminary issue and has drawn our attention to the Tribunal s decision in the case of Manohar Mali and Other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove decision reported in 2013-TIOL-198-CESTAT-Mum held that individual duty liability is to be segregated separately against each different individual and common order in respect of different assessees confirming joint demands cannot be upheld. To the same effect is the Tribunal decision in the case of Sree Aravindh Steels Ltd. v. CCE, Trichy reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 332 (Tri.-Chennai) laying down that duty should not be demanded from two different person in respect of same goods. Finding of the lower authorities holding that subject goods are manufactured jointly and severally by two companies which are jointly and severally liable to pay duty are not acceptable. Further, we note that in the case of Famous Textile v. CCE, Rajkot [200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o bar on the authorities to lift the veil of a company, whether a manufacturer or a buyer, to see it as not wearing that mask, or not being treated as related person, when both, the manufacturer and the buyer are infact the same persons. It is further held in the said decisions that tax planning may be legitimate provided within the framework of law but colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning. Dubious methods resorting to artifice or subterfuge payment of taxes on which really is income can today no longer be applauded and legitimized as a splendid work by a wise man but has to be condemned and punished with severest of penalties and for that purpose if a person is found to indulge therein the lifting of veil would also be justifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
