9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) [Order per: M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - Appeal No. E/4102/05 by M/s. Jyoti Processors P. Ltd. is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 236-237/2005(Ahd.-I)(AA/A-IV) dt. 30-8-2005, which was passed on appeal against the order of the original authority No. 22/AC/Offence/2004 dt. 25-11-2004. Appeal No. E/2/06 of M/s. Ram Prints Shyam Prints is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 401 /2005(Ahd-I)(AA/A-IV) dt. 16-11-2005, which was also passed on appeal against the order of the original authority No. 22 /AC/Offence/2004 dt. 25-11-2004. 1.2 Appeal No. E/873/07 is by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 162 to 164/2007/(Ahd-I) dt. 16-4-2007, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. 3.3 Demand relating to past clearances :- (a) A show cause notice dt. 21-12-2005 was issued to M/s. Jyoti Processors Pvt. Ltd. demanding central excise duty of Rs. 27,14,682/- holding that during the period 5-5-2001 to 18-9-2001, a total quantity of 8,65,701 L. Mtrs. of fabrics of different varieties were sent to M/s. Ram Prints Shyam Prints from M/s. Jyoti Processors Pvt. Ltd. without carrying out stentering activities. (b) Addl. Commissioner confirmed demand of Rs. 27,14,682/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 11AC on M/s. Jyoti Processors Pvt. Ltd., of Rs. 5 lakhs on Ram Shyam Prints and Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri Nirmal Kumar Agarwal. Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 16-04-2007 al lowed the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below :- "20. When this case was booked, rightly it was inferred that M/s. Jyoti had been aiding and abetting in getting M/s. Ram/Shyam Prints processed their goods from power operating machine from Jyoti, even though they were hand processing i.e. non-power operated unit. Therefore, when the scheme of compounded levy was optional, the Revenue authorities suspended the facility of compounded levy for M/s. Jyoti Processors. Suspension and withdrawal of facility was upheld as their appeal was rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) order in appeal No, 137/ 2003(Ahd-I) dt. 12-3-2003. The withdrawal of compounded levy facility was effective from date of withdrawal. It cannot be retrospective. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y scheme. Nothing more was liable from them. Revenue authority had badly failed to make a case against appellant No. 1 regarding contravention of clause 8(3) of the compounded levy notification." 7. Under the compounded levy scheme, the actual production and clearances are not relevant for determining the quantum of excise duty payable. There is no reliable evidence to prove the allegation that M/s. Jyoti Processors Pvt. Ltd. have cleared certain quantities of fabrics without stentering as the same has not been substantiated by any test results. Under these circumstances, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the allegation of clandestine removal of 8,65,701/- L.Mtrs. to M/s. Ram Prints Shyam Prints was not sustainable c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
