https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374938 Evidence of an absence of premises, machinery, workers and regular records supported the conclusion that M/s. Austin was a dummy, name-lender unit and that clearances shown as job work were used to evade central excise duty. Non-compliance with Notification No. 83/94-CE was treated as substantive on the facts, so duty remained payable for the admissible period. The demand for the earlier period was barred by limitation and was restricted to the non-time-barred period from 01/04/2003. Penalty under Section 11AC was correspondingly confined to the duty confirmed, and the penalty on Smt. Helen Charles D'Silva was reduced to a commensurate amount because her role was limited to lending her name. en-us Tue, 05 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:05:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374938 Evidence of an absence of premises, machinery, workers and regular records supported the conclusion that M/s. Austin was a dummy, name-lender unit and that clearances shown as job work were used to evade central excise duty. Non-compliance with Notification No. 83/94-CE was treated as substantive on the facts, so duty remained payable for the admissible period. The demand for the earlier period was barred by limitation and was restricted to the non-time-barred period from 01/04/2003. Penalty under Section 11AC was correspondingly confined to the duty confirmed, and the penalty on Smt. Helen Charles D'Silva was reduced to a commensurate amount because her role was limited to lending her name. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374938