TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duties demanded and the penal lies imposed and redemption fine determined are as follows - (i) I order the following processing units to pay Central Excise duty amounting to rupees as indicated against each of them on the processed fabrics so removed by them to M/s. Nangalia Group of Companies during the period from 1-4-1997 to 16-12-1998, under Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944:- SR.NO. NAME OF PROCESSING UNIT DUTY AMOUNT (RS.) 1 M/s. Anjani Dyg & Ptg Mills 5,76,124/- 2 M/s. Asian Dyg.& Ptg Mills 3,16,122/- 3 M/s. Gomti Processors Ltd. 8,836/- 4 M/s. Mamta Dyg & Ptg Mills 13,422/- 5 Nitharika Dyg & Ptg Mills 61,236/- 6 Oriental Dyg & Ptg Mills 12,832/- 7 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri Suresh Kumar, H. Chag Director of M/s. Suntex Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 2,38,000/- 5 Shri Rakesh Chandrabhan Goyal Director of Varun Dyg & Ptg Mills 7,000/- 6 Shri Akshay Kumar, M. Juneja Director of M/s. Rajlaxmi Prints Pvt. Ltd. 2,82,000/- 7 Shri Habib Rehman Abdul Gani Unwala, M.D. of Oriental Dyg & Ptg Mills 700/- 8 Shri Jay Prakash S. Bhomia Authorized Signatory of M/s. Rupa Dyg & Ptg Mills 4,800/- 9 Shri Mahendra Singh F. Singhvi Director of M/s. Mamta Dyg & Ptg Mills 700/- 10 Shri Manish R. Gupta Director of M/s. Nitharika Dyg & Ptg Mills 3,000/- 11 Shri Naresh D. Vanshai Authorized signatory of M/s. Prakash Dyg & Ptg Mills 250/- (iv) I also impose penalty on foll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lls Ltd, (ii) M/s. Asian Dyg & Ptg Mills, (iii) M/s. Rajlaxmi Prints Pvt Ltd. (iv) M/s. Suntex fabrics Pvt Ltd. & (v) M/s. Varun Dyg & Ptg Mills under the erstwhile Rule 173Q(2)(a) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. However I give them an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine as indicated below. Sr. no. Name of processing unit Amount of fine imposed (Rs.) 1 M/s. Anjani Dyg & Ptg Mills 30,000/- 2 M/s. Asian Dyg & Ptg Mills 16,000/- 3 M/s. Rajlaxmi Prints Pvt Ltd. 2,82,000'- 4 M/s. Suntex Fabrics Pvt Ltd. 2,38,000/- 5 M/s. Varun Dyg & Ptg Mills 70,001- 1.2 Appellants at Sr. Nos 1, 3, 6, 8, 15, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 25 are processors of MMF and assessee under the Central Excis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... will not call for invocation of the larger period. 2.1 After hearing both sides and considering the material it is found:- (a) The ld. Advocate, Sh. Christian submits for the processors that once declarations have been filed under notification 27/92 the liability of the processors as regards deliberate misdeclaration would diminish and cease specially when no collusion is alleged therefore the period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) cannot be invoked for and demands for the period 1997-98 to 15-12-1998 by SCN dated 22-5-1999 cannot be invoked. The business dealings of the processors was with 130 to 150 clients (Traders) and the Nangalia a group was hardly providing business of 5 to 10% of the turn over there is no allegation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enefit of the decision in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 45 could be available to the assessee begin Larger Bench decision as the full implication of Notification 27/92 declaration came to be settled only by Larger Bench vide its order in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 455 LB on 30-9-2002. Thus benefit of doubt would go to the processors to have reasons to believe that one cannot go beyond the declarations as given by Traders under Notification 27/92. Even the departmental authorities were not clear about the status of such a declaration; That it was not sacrosanct, was not the belief to be entertained came to be settled by Larger Bench, this is also reinforced as they also did not take any action on RT12's and other declarations filed by the assessees within the no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aving to being knowingly to have declared lower prices as declared to have vide notification 27/92 by the Trader when in the milieu of the law, MMF processing trades as understood then and commercial practice at that time was otherwise i.e. during the relevant period 1997-98 to 15-12-1998. We would therefore find no reasons or find ingredients exist to uphold the invocation of the larger period of demand in the facts herein. Duty demands and liabilities to confiscation therefore cannot be upheld. (c) the plea on behalf of Nangellia group, made by ld. Advocate Sh. Bulachandani, that they are manufacturer and weavers of fabrics and the prime quality of Gray fabrics were sold and the declarations made for the fabrics sent for processi....