TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (12) TMI 325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he impugned order, the following duty and penalty have to be deposited by the appellants. Appellants Penalties Duty SP Group Rs. 12,75,04,322/- Rs. 12,75,04,322/- Shri S. Satyanarayan Rs. 50,00,000/- Shri S. Radhakrishna Rs. 50,00,000/- Shri S. Shankar Rs. 25,00,000/- Shri S. Naveen Rs. 25,00,000/- Shri S. Chetan Rs. 25,00,000/- In terms of the impugned Order, the Central Excise duty confirmed comes to Rs. 12,75,04,322/-. An amount of Rs. 12/- lakh voluntarily deposited by SPI, KPI, NPI, CPPL & SKPI has been appropriated by the Commissioner. An amount of Rs. 21,44,000/- debited by the manufacturer vide PLA Entry 24, 25, 26 all dated 21-12-2001 is confirmed as payable. The Adjudicating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ip firm and the partners are all close relatives. He said that by a novel modus operand; huge evasion has taken place and revenue was defrauded by the entire group. He also drew the Bench's attention to the fact that there was cash seizure to the tune of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- in the residence of Shri Satyanarayan. He also invited our attention to certain documents like the invoices prepared in a factory and the computerized invoice prepared in M/s. Satyanarayan Plastic Agency (SPA) and also the gate pass to explain the modus operand; adopted by the group in evading Central Excise duty. He said although the finished goods were manufactured in the six manufacturing units, they were not sold from there. They were cleared from the factory to the so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12,74,04,322/- is confirmed as Central Excise duty and an equal amount is imposed as penalty on fictitious entity SP Group. The show cause notice in the opening Para called SP Group as comprising of six manufacturing units, whereas in Para 57 of the show cause notice, it is stated that SP Group as represented by five partners and six manufacturing units. However, the learned Commissioner has confirmed duty against SP Group calling it as comprising of six manufacturing units. There is no demand or requirement under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 from any of the registered or declared unit which are in agreement. Neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order is served on SP Group which is held as manufacturer against whom ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndition 10 of the Notification is not correct. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Neelkamal Plastic Ltd. reported in 2004 (164) E.L.T. 197 (Tribunal). 7. We find that the Central Excise Authority had alleged huge evasion by the so called SP Group comprising of the six manufacturing units and also the SPG. The duty to the tune of Rs. 12,75,04,322/- has been confirmed on the goods manufactured and cleared jointly and severely by the SP Group comprising of SPI, SGPI, CPPL, NPI, KPI, and SKPI for the period from 1998-99 to 2005-06 in terms of Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. There is no indication in the order of the Adjudicating Authority as to from whom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on all concerned, as separate existence of individual units are not recognizable. It was urged that this decision was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [1993 (67) E.L.T. A156 (S.C.)] and therefore, the ratio of the same has to be applied in the present case also. We find that as pointed out by the learned advocate SP Group appears to be a fictitious group which is created by the Revenue. There is no show cause notice to the so called SP Group. Neither there is demand of duty on any one of the six manufacturing units. The learned advocate pointed out that even though in Annexure-E to the show cause notice the clearances from each manufacturing unit were mentioned, they had not demanded duty from each of the factory. On a very careful con....