Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (12) TMI 1398

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aged in the manufacture of various Chemicals. In the month of February 1988, the Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of M/s Bakul conducted search and prepared Panchnama. It was found that M/s. Bakul floated M/s. Pocono Chemicals (in short of M/s. Pocono), a partnership firm and M/s Shonar Enterprises, Proprietorship firm, for availing SSI exemption with intention to evade payment of duty. A Show Cause Notice dated 20.08.1990 was issued proposing demand of duty alongwith interest, denying the benefit of SSI exemption and to impose penalty on M/s Bakul and to impose penalties to the other appellants. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 64,87,686.13 along with interest on M/s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ned. He further submits that the appellants had not acquired the goods in any manner and the imposition of penalty under said Rule would not apply. He further submits that as the firms are dummy units and imposition of penalties on the partner and proprietor cannot be survived. He further submits that on the identical situation, the Department in earlier occassion initiated proceedings against M/s. Bakul and M/s. Pocono and the Adjudicating Authority denied SSI exemption for the earlier period, which was set-aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal and therefore, the appellants acted on bonafied belief that they were eligible SSI exemption. He relied upon the various case laws as under:- 1. Comm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the attention of the Bench paragraph 10 of the said decision. He also relied upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of M/s Box & Carton India Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, DELHI-IV 2008-TIOL-946-CESTAT-DEL and CCE, Jammu vs. M/s Sud Pines (P) Ltd 2011-TIOL-1980-CESTAT-DEL. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellants M/s Pocono, M/s Shonar filed the appeals against imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,00,000.00 each under Rule 173Q (1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Shri A.R. Majmudar, filed two appeals as M.D. of M/s Bakul and the other appeal as partner of M/s Pocono against imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000.00 each. Smt. A. A. Majmudar, proprietor of M/s Shonar filed appeal against imposit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd M /s. Shonar under Rule 173Q of erstwhile Rules, 1944. Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 would be applicable in the case of a manufacturer, producer, and registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer. The expressions any manufacturer, producer in Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rule, 1944 make it clear that the said rule would be applicable of the manufacturer and producer. In the present case, according to Revenue M/s. Bakul is the manufacturer, producer of the excisable goods and the Central Excise Duty was demanded on M/s. Bakul. It is the case of the Revenue that the other unit M/s Pocono and M/s Shonar are dummy and therefore, the imposition of penalty on the said dummy units cannot be sustained. The Ho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tner of M/s Pocono is liable to set-aside, as he is already penalized as Director of M/s. Bakul on the same transaction. The imposition of penalty on Smt. A.A. Majmudar proprietress of M/s Shonar, we find that Smt. A.A. Majmudar had knowingly involved in irregular availment of the SSI exemption by M/s. Bakul. Hence, the imposition of penalty on her is justified. But, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the quantum of penalty is liable to be reduced. 8. The Learned Advocate submits that Rule 209A is not applicable as the appellants had not dealt with the goods as well as there is no proposal for confiscation of the goods. Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides any person who acquires possession of, o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates