9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 917X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said part of the SCN is not sustainable. In so far as it relates to demand of differential duty of ₹ 1,44,96,923/. We did not find any ground forwarded by Revenue to negate such holding by the Original Authority in respect of allegation of clandestine clearance - appeal filed by the Revenue dismissed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/3147, 3148. 3149, 3150, 3151, 3152. 3153, 3154, 3155/2005-EX[DB] & E/2468/2006-EX[DB] - Final Order No. 70017-70026/2017 - Dated:- 17-11-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Rupesh Kumar Shri Anurag Mishra, Advocates for the assessee Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commr. (A.R.) for the Department ORDER The above stated appellants except C.C.E., Lucknow were issued with a common show cause notice F. No. DZU/INV/37/2000/Pt./2327 dated 24.09.2001, therefore the above stated appeals are taken together for decision. 2. The above stated appellants (except C.C.E., Lucknow) were engaged in the manufacture of sanitary/bathroom fittings. M/s. Punjab General Manufacturing Works was manufacturing said goods having brand name L K. The other manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d., M/s. Goldline Bath Fixture (P) Ltd., M/s. Sherya Sanitation (P) Ltd. and M/s. L K Sanitations (P) Ltd. were called upon to show cause as to why Central Excise Duty amounting to ₹ 1,44,96,923/- on account of clubbing of clearances should not be demanded and recovered from them under the first proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and why Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 1,04,34,642/- involved on clandestinely removed goods should Not be demanded and recovered from them jointly and/or severally under the same provisions. In addition there were proposal for interest and penalty. Through the said show cause notice Shri Basant Lal and Shri Anil Arora were called upon to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. Commissioner, Central Excise, Lucknow vide Order-in-Original No. 19/Commr/LKO/2002 dated 27.08.2002 adjudicated the said show cause notice. The above stated manufacturer appellants preferred appeals before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 653-661/103-R dated 02.09.2003 allowed the appeals by way of remand. Through the said final order this Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seizure of any non duty paid goods to any purchaser and that there was no statement of any purchaser that they received non duty paid goods and that there was no evidence of receipt of unaccounted raw materials and there is no evidence produced regarding the transportation of such allegedly clandestinely removed goods. They submitted that in view of their submissions the allegation of clandestine removal was only presumption. The Original Authority did not appreciate the submissions in respect of clubbing of clearances. However, in respect of allegations regarding clandestine clearances, the Original Authority has held that it would be a travesty of justice if the amount of duty so taken is confirmed without even knowing as to which goods and in respect of which company and in what quantity of goods and what was the quantum of value of said goods clandestinely removed and that there was no evidence to show clandestine removal of goods and that there was no juristic person before him on whom he could fasten the duty liability of so called clandestinely removed goods and therefore he dropped the proceedings in respect of demand of duty on the allegation of clandestine clearance. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se an equal penalty of ₹ 23,64,973/- (Rs. Twenty Three lacs Sixty Four thousand Nine hundred Seventy Three only ) against Karm Sanitations, Mathura (Noticee No. 4) under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. (9) I confirm the demand of ₹ 19,12,629 (Rs. Nineteen lacs Twelve Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Nine only) M/s Elkay Sanitations (P) Ltd., Mathura (Noticee No. 5) under proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. I also order the party to pay the interest at appropriate rate under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. (10) I confirm the demand of ₹ 19,12,629 (Rs. Nineteen lacs Twelve Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Nine only) M/s Elkay Sanitations (P) Ltd., Mathura (Noticee No. 5) under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. (11) I confirm the demand of ₹ 21,73,874/- (Rs. Twenty One lacs Seventy Three Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Four only) Against M/s Shreya Sanitations (P) Ltd. Mathura (Noticee No. 6) under proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. I also order the party to pay the interest at appropriate rate unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lacs only) upon Shri Basant Lal (Noticee No. 8)under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. (18) I, further, impose a penalty of ₹ 15,00,000,.00/- (Rs. Fifteen lacs only) upon Shri Anil Arora (Noticee No. 9) under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. Aggrieved by the said order on dropping of the demand in respect of clandestine clearances, the Revenue preferred appeal before this Tribunal. In respect of confirming of demand against individual manufactures and persons on whom personal penalties have been imposed have preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants except the C.C.E., Lucknow. He has taken us through para-23 of the show cause notice wherein M/s. Punjab General Manufacturing Works, Mathura, M/s. Ashoka General Industries, Mathura, M/s. Elite Metal Products, Mathura, M/s. Karam Sanitations, Mathura, M/s. Shreya Sanitations, Mathura, M/s. Elkay Sanitations, Mathura and M/s. Goldline Bath Fixtures Pvt. Ltd., Mathura were called upon to show cause as to why Central Excise duty totally amounting to ₹ 1,44,96,923/- on account of clubbing of clearances should not be demanded and recovered in proviso to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
