TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (11) TMI 412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides. 2. These 4 appeals are directed against the same order. Accordingly, they were taken up together and remain disposed of under this common order. 3. The appellant M/s. Sangam Prints Pvt. Ltd. is a processor of Grey Fabrics. Its unit was visited by Central Excise officers on 9-1-2003. The visiting officers found certain irregularities in relation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice, no penalty is imposable. This order was passed relying on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. - 2003 (161) E.L.T. 285 (T), and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Machino Montell (I) Ltd. - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 466 (Tri.-LB). However, penalties on the other parties and confiscation were upheld (though the amounts were reduced). Hence, these appeals. 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see was not found liable to any penalty, penalty cannot be imposed on other parties associated in the alleged evasion of duty. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Shitala Prasad Sharma v. CCE, Mumbai-I, reported at 2005 (183) E.L.T. 21 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein it is held that co-accused cannot be vested with any higher penal consequences than the mai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lapse. Therefore, confiscating over 98000 Mtrs. of grey fabrics was not justified. However, the offence is clear in relation to over 22000 Mtrs. processed fabrics. Those fabrics had become liable to duty upon processing and they could not have been removed from the manufacturing premises without payment of duty. Therefore, their confiscation and imposition of penalty were entirely justified. Rede....