9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ISE, Vasai-I Divn., Thane II. Search was conducted wherein it was observed that the appellants are manufacturing Car Carrier Semi Trailer coupled with Tata and Leyland Horse/Prime Mover and also trailers. The appellants were registered with the Central excise. After detail investigation, the department has collected information regarding the manufacture and clearance of excisable goods i.e. trailers. The department issued two show-cause notices dated 16.08.2005 and 02.11.2005 proposing demand of excise duty, imposition of penalties to appellant M/s. Agwan Coach Pvt. Ltd. and others. The Asst. Commissioner confirmed the demand as proposed in both the show-cause notice and imposed penalties under Section 11AC, Rule 25 and 26 and penalty also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Components - 2011 (264) ELT 518 (Tri-Chennai). 3. On the other hand, Shri Ajay Kumar, Ld. ADC (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the appellants have exceeded the exemption limit of notification 8/2002 and cleared the trailer, semi-trailer without payment of duty. The submission of the ld. Counsel that the goods manufactured by the appellants and used captively on the chassis is exempted by notification 6/2006, we find that the exemption is available only in respect of the goods which are used captively for manufacture of motor vehicle. In the present case undisputedly the appellants are engaged in the manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oach Pvt. Ltd. is disposed of in above terms. 6. As regards the appeal of other two appellants namely Shri Hanif I. Agwan and Shri Yusuf I. Agwan, on whom personal penalty under Rule 26 was imposed, we find that both the persons being director of the appellant company, were very well aware of the goods being cleared without payment of duty. Therefore, they are liable for penalty. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. 7. As regards appeal filed by M/s. ACT Trading Co., it was observed that M/s. ACT Trading Co. is manufacturing certain parts and clearing it to M/s. Agwan Coach Pvt. Ltd.. There is no demand on goods supplied by M/s. ACT Trading Co., therefore their goods which are not liable for confiscation. In these facts, the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
