2003 (1) TMI 590

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....M/s. Kwalisynth Chemical Industries, which was a partnership firm of which M.U. Upasani was a partner. M/s. Rajguru Chemicals was the proprietary concern of S.U. Upasani. M/s. Rajguru Industries were also similarly placed. The notice was also issued to M/s. Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad and Shri J.S. Thakkar their employee. These three units were on job work basis manufacturing and supplying acid slurry to M/s. Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad. The allegation made in the notice was that although the three manufacturing units were claimed to be independent on record, they were in fact one since the premises and the labour force was the same and since all three units were controlled by members of the same family. The duty was demanded on the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) for personal hearing. The Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 dismissed the two appeals. Hence the two appeals and two applications by M/s. Rajguru Chemicals, and its proprietor M.U. Upasani. 5. In the meanwhile, in terms of directions made by the jurisdictional Commissioner in terms of Section 35E(4) of the Act, applications were made to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the legality of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) on hearing the assessees passed orders. In his orders he held that the evidence disclosed in the show cause notice was sufficient to establish the unity of the three manufacturing units.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vidence in the show cause notice was properly appreciated by the Additional Commissioner the Commissioner (Appeals) has re-appreciated it in a different prospective. He had also in the first order passed, he had by default upheld the Additional Commissioner's order of imposing of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on M.U. Upasani. But in the second order-in-appeal he has raised it to Rs. 3 lakhs. In the first order there was no reference to the buyers but in the second order he has chosen to impose penalty on the buyers and their employee. Shri Sahasrabudhe clarifies that he is not representing the buyers. 8. The provisions of Section 35 governing the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) were modified vide Section 128 of the Finance Act, 2001. B....