Appeals allowed for remand due to jurisdiction and duty liability issues. Fresh assessment ordered.

The appeals by M/s Rajkamal Textiles Printery and M/s Madhuri Print, challenging the demand of Central Excise duty, interest, and penalties, were allowed for a remand. The first appellant's jurisdiction was questioned due to the absence of a dyeing machine, while the second appellant's duty liability was based on the presence of dyeing machines. The impugned order was set aside, directing a fresh assessment by the Commissioner considering all evidence and providing a personal hearing to the appellants for a comprehensive review.

---

---

Issues:
- Confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty against two appellants
- Jurisdiction of demand against the first appellant
- Validity of demand against the second appellant
- Consideration of evidences and submissions
- Duty liability against the second appellant

Confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty against two appellants:
The appellants, M/s Rajkamal Textiles Printery and M/s Madhuri Print, appealed against an order confirming the demand of Central Excise duty along with interest and penalties. The appellants carried out fabric dyeing processes using electric motors. The Revenue alleged that the appellants processed stock of sarees with power, leading to duty liability. The search conducted revealed various processes carried out with power aid. Statements were recorded, and a Show Cause Notice was issued, resulting in the confirmed demands and penalties.

Jurisdiction of demand against the first appellant:
The first appellant, M/s Rajkamal Textiles Printery, contested the demand, stating that there was no dyeing machine in their factory. The investigating officer also confirmed this. The appellant argued that without a dyeing facility, no duty liability could be imposed. They highlighted discrepancies in the Commissioner's findings and emphasized that job work transactions were conducted through external workers, supported by documents like bills and balance sheets. The Commissioner's failure to consider explanations and evidence was criticized.

Validity of demand against the second appellant:
The second appellant, M/s Madhuri Print, acknowledged the presence of dyeing machines but claimed the dyeing process was outsourced. Payments to job workers and tax deductions were mentioned to support this claim. The appellant contended that their bills were not considered, and the Commissioner misread the balance sheet. The appellant argued that a thorough investigation was not conducted on the bills found during the search.

Consideration of evidences and submissions:
Both sides presented their arguments, with the appellants emphasizing the lack of dyeing machines in the first appellant's factory and outsourcing of dyeing processes by the second appellant. The impugned order was reviewed, noting the absence of machines for dyeing in the first appellant's premises. The order was set aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the Commissioner with a directive to assess all relevant evidence and provide a personal hearing to the appellants.

Duty liability against the second appellant:
The liability of duty against the second appellant was confirmed based on the presence of Jigar machines for dyeing. However, the appellant claimed outsourcing of the dyeing process, which was not adequately considered. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision after a thorough examination of all evidence and providing a personal hearing to the appellant.

In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals by both appellants were allowed for a remand based on the issues identified and the need for a comprehensive review of evidence and submissions.

---