1989 (11) TMI 157

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Automobile & Ancillary Ind. This issue is now followed up by the separate Misc. application, the hearing of which is listed today. 2. Shri Bharucha, the learned advocate on behalf of the applicants contended that Shri Lakhani is imposed with a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs, as a partner of M/s. Universal Automobile Ancillary Ind. The firm has also been imposed with a separate penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs. Shri S.K. Lakhani is also a proprietor of M/s. Premier Electronics, on whom a separate penalty has been imposed. Shri Bharucha stated that a separate appeal has been filed by M/s. Premier Electronics, the proprietory concern of Shri S.K. Lakhani. The issue is only with regard to the joint appeal filed by M/s. Universal Automobile & Ancillary Ind. bei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iven to both sides and their comments were invited. In the aforesaid order the Bench had permitted the joint appeal filed by the Karta of the HUF and the HUF on the ground that the cause of action remains the same and both the Karta and HUF were imposed penalties under the single order of the Collector. Shri Bharucha contended that the principle laid down in the aforesaid order would be applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case, Shri S.K. Lakhani, one of the appellants in the joint appeal, is a partner of the firm, M/s. Universal Automobile & Ancillary Ind. The penalty was imposed on him because he happens to be the partner, managing the affairs of the firm, apart from a separate penalty imposed on the firm itself. Since the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stay application may be listed for hearing on merits on 22-11-1989. No fresh notice since both parties are present. [Order per : S.V. Maruthi, Member (Judicial)]. - 1. I have gone through the order proposed by Shri. R. Jayaraman, Member (Technical) and I would like to add the following: 2. The facts in brief are : the appellants firm was closed in March, 1986 and sold their plot. The Plant and Machinery was temporarily shifted to the premises situated at A-41 N.I.C.E. Satpur, Nasik, which belonged to one of the partners of the appellants' firm, Shri S.K. Lakhani. Thereafter the appellants found a site at Plot No. W-134-A, M.I.D.C. Ambad, Nasik. The Plant and Machinery, which was temporarily shifted to A-41 N.I.C.E. Satpur was transferred ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....duty of Rs. 18,15,444.22 and also the goods seized from the factory premises of M/s. Universal Automobiles and Ancillary Industries on 24th January, 1987, valued at Rs. 2,24,299.00 without payment of duty." The finding of the Collector on the above allegation is that "M/s. Universal after the close of the factory in April 1986, cleared the goods worth over Rupees Fourteen Lakhs. Though the unit has no machinery, workers, power connection, and also the factory premises of its own till January 1987, to undertake the manufacture of any goods." He also found that "the goods were actually manufactured in the factory premises of M/s. Premier at Plot A-41 Satpur, Nasik. The Company M/s. Universal and its partner Shri S.K. Lakhani have therefore....