2012 (11) TMI 605

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had upheld the order in original and its findings, as to the liability of M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. The allegations against M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. were that its manufacturing activities were carried on by two units KCPL and JKCL. In para 34.7, the CESTAT had noticed that GTC Industries Ltd. was controlling since beginning the manufacturing and marketing. It further cast the liability upon it (GTC Industries Ltd.). Later in para 35.3 of the impugned order the Tribunal observed as under:-     "35.3 We have found that the manufacturing activity was carried out by KCPL and JKCL. The goods manufactured were marketed by GTC. The event of levy being manufacture, loss of Revenue was attributable to the activity of manufacture an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT] within a period of three months from the date of the said order. The appellant company, we are told has deposited the amount of penalty levied against it but the principal amount of Rs.3.85 crores has not been paid. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned ASG, appearing on behalf of the respondents, argued that in terms of our order mentioned above, these appeals should stand be deemed to have been dismissed without any further reference to the court.     Counsel appearing for the appellant company, however, disputed this position and contended that the CESTAT has not determined the liability towards excise duty against the appellant. All that was levied against the appellant was a penalty of Rs.2.74 lakh....