9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he entire value of the goods as being cum-duty. For the said purpose the matter is being remitted to the adjudicating authority for doing the needful. Imposition of penalty on proprietor - Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Appellant contended that inasmuch as penalty already stands imposed upon the proprietary unit, the imposition of separate penalty upon the Proprietor is not called for - Held that:- by following the decision of Tribunal in the case of Royal Springs vs. CCE, New Delhi-I [2002 (4) TMI 547 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], the penalty imposed upon the Prop. was set-aside, the said decision stands confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner vs. Royal Springs [2002 (10) TMI 788 - SUPREME COURT]. The issue is well se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Rules, 2002 is being challenged on the ground that once the proprietory unit stands penalised, no separate penalty can be imposed upon the Proprietor. 3. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Sh. R. K. Philips, Id. Advocate and Sh. G. R. Singh, Id. DR we find that it requires to be decided as to whether the entire consideration received by the manufacturing unit in respect of goods cleared clandestinely has to be treated as cum-duty price and the duty required to be paid by them needs to be re-quantified. 4. We find That the issue is no more res-integra and stands decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd.,-[2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC)] . While upholding the decision of the Tribunal, its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s such the entire consideration has to be considered as inclusive of excise duty. However, the principal laid-down in the case of Maruti Udyog Limited was not followed by observing that in the case of M/s Amrit Agro the assessee was clearing its final product by claiming exemption notification which leads to the clear fact that the consideration being received by the assessee was san of duty. For better appreciation, we reproduce para 12 as under: 12 Therefore, according to the Department, all these years the assessee had cleared the goods on the footing that roasted peanuts were exempted. They have filed the requisite declarations/classifications on that basis. According to the Department, since the assessee had cleared roasted pea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication when throughout the relevant years the assessee has been clearing the goods on the basis of the exemption notification of 1997, referred to above, which is not applicable to roasted peanuts, and, therefore, according to the Department, the above judgment of this Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. has no application to the facts of the present case. 6. As is seen from above, even the departments view taken before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Agro is in favour of the assessee. 7. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the demand confirmed against the appellant is required to be recomputed by taking the entire value of the goods as being cum-duty. For the said purpose the matter is being remitted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
