TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals allowed by remand due to natural justice violations in adjudication proceedings lacking adequate personal hearings</h1> <h3>Art Luminaires, Ashwin Dias Versus Commissioner of C.E. & S.T. -Daman</h3> Art Luminaires, Ashwin Dias Versus Commissioner of C.E. & S.T. -Daman - TMI Issues:1. Valuation of lighting fixtures supplied to brand owner.2. Imposition of separate penalty on a partner of a partnership firm.3. Setting aside of redemption fine by the Commissioner (Appeals).Analysis:Issue 1: Valuation of lighting fixtures supplied to brand ownerThe appeals revolve around whether the lighting fixtures supplied by the appellant to the brand owner should be valued based on the average sale price of the brand owner, Wipro, under Rule 10A(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The department alleged a relationship between the appellant and Wipro, asserting that the appellant was a job worker of Wipro, thus liable to pay excise duty based on Wipro's sale price. Show cause notices were issued, leading to differential duty demands and penalties. The appellant contended that they were not related to Wipro under Section 4, and duty was correctly paid on transaction value, citing various judgments in support.Issue 2: Imposition of separate penalty on a partnerThe question arose whether a separate personal penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be imposed on Mr. Ashwin Dias, a partner of the partnership firm. The appellant argued that precedents established that no separate penalty could be levied on a partner of a partnership firm, citing relevant case laws.Issue 3: Setting aside of redemption fineThe issue centered on whether the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the redemption fine of Rs.1,20,00,000 on the grounds that the goods were not available for confiscation. The appellant argued that if goods are not available, no confiscation or redemption fine can be imposed, supported by a Larger Bench judgment.The Tribunal found a violation of principles of natural justice in the adjudication process due to lack of adequate opportunities for personal hearings. The personal penalty on Mr. Ashwin Dias was set aside based on established legal precedents prohibiting separate penalties on partners of partnership firms. The setting aside of the redemption fine was upheld, as the goods were not available for confiscation, aligning with the legal position. Consequently, the appeals by M/s. Art Luminaires were remanded for fresh orders ensuring adherence to natural justice principles, Mr. Ashwin Dias' appeal was allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues, arguments, and the Tribunal's findings in the judgment, encompassing the valuation of goods, penalty imposition, and redemption fine setting.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
