9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s but actually belonged to others who have been mentioned by name in the impugned order. Mr. Praveen Parashar s application to get the said brand name registered in his name had not been approved. That the brand name happens to be the same as the name of a son in the family does not make the brand name belong to them. As M/s. CPMPL is found to be a dummy unit, the seizure and subsequent confiscation is also clearly sustainable as has been brought out by the adjudicating authority. As regards penalty on Mr. Praveen Parasher, it is seen that he is the proprietor of M/s. CE and therefore, as penalty on M/s. CE has been imposed, separate penalty on Mr. Praveen Parasher is not warranted. But in the present case, Mr. Praveen Parasher was the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Yashpal Sharma, DR JUDGEMENT PER: R.K. Singh; The appellants have filed stay applications alongwith appeals in these cases against Order-in-Original No. 06/Comm/Fbd/CX/2013 dated 30.07.2013 in terms of which demand of ₹ 1,42,82,986/- was confirmed alongwith interest and equal mandatory penalty against M/s. Chirag Electronics (C.E.) holding that M/s. Chirag Packing machines (Pvt.) Ltd. (CPMPL) was a dummy unit of the former and consequently clubbed their clearances. Penalties on others were also imposed. Some goods seized were also confiscated and option to pay redemption fine given. 2. Essentially the issues involved in these cases are as under: (i) Whether the clearance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name had not been approved. That the brand name happens to be the same as the name of a son in the family does not make the brand name belong to them. As M/s. CPMPL is found to be a dummy unit, the seizure and subsequent confiscation is also clearly sustainable as has been brought out by the adjudicating authority. The appellants contention that semi finished goods can not be seized is totally devoid of any legal basis as Section 110 of Customs Act (Made applicable to Central Excise Act 1944 by virtue of Section 12 thereof) nowhere debars seizure of semi finished goods if they are liable to confiscation. 5. As regards penalty on Mr. Praveen Parasher, it is seen that he is the proprietor of M/s. CE and therefore, as penalty on M/s. CE ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
