9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion, the Original Authority concluded that based on the evidences that the transactions made by the three entities viz. ANG, DGW and NGPC are to be treated as a single entity for the purpose of SSI exemption. Here, we note that there is no clear finding as to what is the legal status of these three units, which of them are dummy units and which are genuine manufacturing units. This is necessary in order to fix the duty liability on a legally sustainable basis. In fact as noted above, the confirmation of duty demand is not against any particular assessee. The order simply states that an amount of ₹ 45,32,926/- is confirmed. Further, a penalty of equivalent amount was jointly imposed on the three units. The amount is not quantified fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engaged in the trading of glass articles. The officers of the Central Excise Intelligence conducted certain verifications in November, 2004 in various connected premises of these three units. On completion of the investigation, proceedings were initiated against these units and Shri Lokesh Pathak and Shri Rajiv Pathak by way of issue of show cause notice on 29.04.2005. The show cause notice proposed central excise duty demand of ₹ 58,66,596/- jointly and severally from these three units. Further, proposals were made for confiscation of seized goods and Indian currency and also for imposition of penalty on the units as well as the invidividuals. The case was adjudicated and vide the impugned order, the Commissioner held that the cleara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egally not sustainable. He relied on the various decided case to support his contention. 5. Ld.AR reiterated the findings of the Original Authority. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records including the written submissions. 7. It is clear that the Original Authority had passed a lengthy order examining various evidences gathered during the investigation by the Department. We have perused the findings recorded in the said impugned order. We note that the Original Authority has recorded that the appellants agreed for clubbing of the clearances of ANG and DGW for the purpose of duty liability. However, it appears that they have disputed the clubbing of turnover of NGPC in the total turnover for the said purpose. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty of equal amount has also been imposed on them under Rules 9(2), 52A, 226 and 209 of the Central Excise Rules on GTC Industries Ltd. and PTPL jointly and severally. In our view, which is based on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Sree Aravindh Steel Ltd. v. CCE, Trichy (supra), Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur (supra) and also the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner v. Mukesh Harlalka (order dated 13-4-2011) the duty demand cannot be confirmed against two or more persons jointly and severally and similarly penalty cannot be imposed on two or more jointly or severally. 8. In view of the serious legal infirmities observed in the impugned order, the same is set aside. The matter is remanded ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
