9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d detailed findings of the ineligibility of the appellant to claim rebate of duty paid by them on export of goods. As against such a detailed findings, we are of the view that the grounds taken in appeal by the appellant herein needs to be appreciated in depth which can be done only at the time of the final disposal of appeal. - appellant has not made any case for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved. At the same time, as the appellant is pleading severe financial hardship, keeping in mind that identically placed appellant Amar Fashions application for waiver of amounts was considered sympathetically and waiver of balance amounts was granted on the ground that said Amar Fashions has deposited an amount of ₹ 50.00 lakh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .I. Vyas appearing on behalf of the appellant would draw our attention to the fact that the issue is regarding rejection of the rebate claim, confirmation of the central excise duty and imposition of penalties. It is his submission that the appellant herein had exported finished fabrics and claimed rebate on such exports. He would draw our attention to the basic facts and submit that the appellant had discharged the duty liability and hence they were eligible to avail the benefit of rebate claim. He would also submit another legal point, as to, that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of duty jointly and severally on the appellant as well as proprietor and the partners together. It is his submission that various case laws sq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en granted to the appellant alongwith equivalent amount of penalties and imposed penalties of ₹ 1.65 crores and ₹ 1.45 crores on the appellant for furnishing overvalued FOB price of the goods sought to be exported and also demanded interest against the appellant on all the amounts which have been sought to be recovered. 7. On perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority has in paragraph no.57 recorded that the processors of grey fabrics from whom the appellant had purportedly got the goods processed had clearly indicated that they have not supplied any goods to the appellant and some of the firms were not at all to be found and were either fake / bogus or non-existing firms. It is noted that the adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he adjudicating authority has confirmed the demands against M/s. Astha Exim, the appellant herein and also the proprietor. It is to be noted that the appellant M/s. Astha Exim is a proprietorship firm, and the proprietor and proprietorship firm cannot held as separate entities is the law which has been settled. The adjudicating authority having confirmed the demand on the appellant M/s. Astha Exim, has only stated the obvious that if the proprietorship firm is not able to pay the demand of the duty, the proprietor becomes liable for such duty. As regards the order wherein the adjudicating authority has indicated that de-facto partners are also liable to pay the duty, we are of the view that the challenge towards the demand of duty as being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
