9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the failure to challenge the finding in favour of Shri M.S. Jain in a connected matter would operate on the principle of res judicata on the Tribunal from examining the other cases on merits? " 2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present appeals are as follows : "(i) Based on investigations and by referring to statements recorded, in all, five show cause notices dated 29.09.1994, 29.09.1994, 04.10.1994, 29.09.1994 and 28.09.1994 respectively, were issued to various units of M/s. Kiran Group of Companies situated at Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. Upon gathering intelligence information that Kiran Group of Companies situated in the States of Tamil Nadu, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nannilam Silicates Pvt. Ltd. Shri. P.K. Jain & Shri.Adish Jain 6. M/s. Sunrise Silicates Pvt. Ltd. Smt. Manju Jain and Shri. Sanjeev Kumar Jain 7. M/s. Super Silicates Pvt. Ltd. Shri. B.M. Bharadwaj & P.K. Jain 8. M/s. Solar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Shri. S. C. Gupta & Shri. S. K. Jain 9. M/s. Pawan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Shri. M.S. Jain & Shri.S.K. Jain 10. M/s. Meghna Silicates Pvt. Ltd. Smt. Kiran Jain & Shri.Adish Jain 11. M/s. Invincible Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Smt. Kiran Jain, Shri.Adish Jain and Shri. S. Krishnan 12. M/s. Shree Kanagadurga Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. Shri. B.M. Bharadwaj, Shri. Allah Basha and Shri. Anand Sharma 13. M/s. Pavul Silicates Pvt. Ltd. Shri. S.K. Jain, Shri. Rufus Fernando and Shri. P.N. Sugumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Central Excise Rules, 1944: 1. Shri. M.S. Jain S/o. Late L.R. Jain 2. Shri. S.K. Jain -do- 3. Shri. P.K. Jain -do- 4. Shri. D.K. Jain -do- 5. Shri.Sanjeev Kumar Jain S/o. P.K. Jain 6. Shri. S. Krishnan, Sales Manager 7. Shri. R. Narayanasamy, Manaer, Kiran Road Lines 8. Shri. K.K. Jain, Proprietor, Sree Vijay Vallabh Silicate Ltd. 9. Shri. V. Manickam, Works Manager, Sagar Chemicals 10. Shri. Rufus Fernando, Excise - in - charge 11. Shri. M.S. Mahadevan, Excise - in - charge 12. Shri. M. Ganesan, Accountant. (iv) Replies to show cause notices were submitted and based on the replies given by various individuals, the adjudication order came to be passed. The adjudicating authority dealt with the charges in the show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. In view of the above evidence it is clear beyond doubt that the above quantities of Sodium Silicate were cleared without payment of duty and the said charge had not been rebutted by the assessee as the said goods were accounted for in their private records but a lesser quantity was reflected in the statutory records. .... .... .... 64. The above units are therefore liable to pay duty at the appropriate rate on the above quantities of Sodium Silicates as the same were cleared without payment of duty as has been established with reference to the private records recovered from the units. The customers who had received the said goods had confirmed that they had received the goods without payment of duty. Thus the charges of contravention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Shri. M.S. Jain and the 21 units, the Board again focused on the role of Shri. M.S. Jain and held that it was Shri. Jain who suppressed facts to evade payment of duty. All the grounds raised in the review order have found a place in the memoranda of Appeals before us. These appeals are against an order (of the Commissioner) which neither treated Shri.M.S.Jain as manufacturer of the goods nor held him liable for penalty. Yet the Revenue would not prefer appeal against Shri. M.S. Jain. The central figure in the Board's review order has not been arraigned before us by the Revenue. In such circumstances, these appeals cannot be decided on merits. This case stands on a stronger footing than Sompura Ceramics (supra) and Supreme Electrical A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , one of the person who suffered the penalty order, did not file any appeal, it does not change the colour of the stand of the department in the show cause notice. It is the specific case of the department that the clearances of all these units and the proprietory concerns should be clubbed together for the purpose of denying the benefit of notification. However, the Department can always sustain its allegations, de hors the statement of M.S.Jain, if there are other materials to support its case. Merely because the case of M.S. Jain has not been appealed against, it does not, and would not, dilute the case of the Department. 6. The case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs. Meco Tronics (P) Ltd. - reported in 2003 (159) E.L.T. 628 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
