9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties. 2. The issue involved in these appeals are that pursuant to search and inquiry made at the premises of the appellant, having accepted to pay the tax as calculated by Revenue alongwith interest and penalty in terms of Section 11AC (1)(d) of Central Excise Act, whether all proceedings should be held concluded, and the impugned orders are rendered nugatory. 3. M/s Homecare Lifestyle, a proprietary concern of Shri Deepak Goyal who is engaged in the manufacture of kitchen accessories under the brand name of "Homecare‟ belonging to another. M/s Homecare Lifestyle manufacturing the goods and clearing the same to M/s Echelon Lifestyle Products Private Limited, whose Directors are Shri Deepak Goyal and Shri Anoop Goyal and to M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 2,24,30,657/- M/s Echelon Lifestyle Products Private Limited C. No. IV (Hqrs. Prev.) 15/09/2015 /2047 dt. 06.02.2016 Rs. 2,24,30,657/- M/s Homecare Lifestyle C. No. IV (Hqrs. Prev.) 15/09/2015 /2053 dt. 06.02.2016 Rs. 2,24,30,657/- Further, there was proposal to impose penalty also under Rule 25 and penalty under Rule 26 on the Directors. 5. Pursuant to issue of show cause notice, further investigations were carried out by Revenue and subsequently duty payable by the manufacturer appellant- M/s Homecare Lifestyle was calculated and communicated by the Department vide a letter No. C/IV/(Hqrs. Prev.)15/9/15/2011 dated 02.04.2018, that they are required to deposit an amount of Rs. 16,45,860/- towards pending excise duty liability. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. From the above, it is apparent that the demand both for the seizure of the goods which was found, non-duty paid, and clearance during the period of dispute, both the disputes were settled under the provisions of Section 11AC (1)(d) of the Central Excise Act. 9. In the meantime, pursuant to issue of show cause notice dated 06.02.2016, hereinabove mentioned, order in original was passed in respect of seizure portion, imposing penalty under Rule 25 and also penalty under Rule 26 on the proprietor / Directors in respect of the aforementioned and also redemption fine was ordered. The appellant had filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide common impugned order-in-appeal dated 28.09.2017, upheld the order-in-original. 10. Bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
