9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is not bearing the brand name of ‘Sudarshan’ i.e. of another person, whereas 5 machines are bearing name of ‘Mohansons’ of their own, therefore, on these 5 machines no demand should have been confirmed. However, both the authorities have not properly verified these documents and given proper findings, therefore this needs to be re-considered by the adjudicating authority and demand should be re- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , penalty on partner is set aside. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - Appeal No. E/8-9/2009-DB - A/10422-10423/2019 - Dated:- 26-2-2019 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For Appellant: Shri Hardik Modh (Advocate) For Respondent: Shri K.J. Kinariwala (AR) ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair the issue involved is that whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. He submits that due to this factual position, the demand needs to re-quantified. He also submits that cum duty benefit was not extended to the appellant which may be considered. He also submits that for penalty imposed under Section 11AC, the lower authorities have not considered the option of 25%. As regard appeal of partner, he submits that since the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and given proper findings, therefore this needs to be re-considered by the adjudicating authority and demand should be re-quantified, if found that these machines are not bearing brand name of another person. As regard, claim of cum duty benefit, it is settled law as held in Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in case of M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd 2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC), whenever demand is confirmed, the cum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of M/s Pravin N. Shah Vs. CESTAT 2014 (305) ELT 480 (Guj.) and in case of CCE V/s M/s Jaiprakash Motvani 2010 (258) ELT 204 (Guj.), therefore, penalty on partner is set aside. Accordingly, appeal of the partner is allowed. As regard the appeal of the partnership firm, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to re-quantify the demand, considering cum duty benefit and 25% option of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
