2013 (12) TMI 1233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tive part of the impugned order :- (i) I confirm the demand of Central Excise Duty and Education Cess & Higher Education Cess amounting to Rs. 6,68,94,028/- (Rupees Six Crore Sixty Eight Lacs Ninety Four Thousand and Twenty Eight Only) on 13073.529 MT quantity of SS Flats removed clandestinely by M/s. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd., and M/s. Juhi Alloys Ltd., Bharua, Sumerpur, Distt., Hamirpur from their factory during the period from 1-10-2006 to 22-11-2007 under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii)   I also order for recovery of interest from M/s. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd., and M/s. Juhi Alloys Ltd., Bharua, Sumerpur, Distt., Hamirpur on the amount of confirmed Central Excise duty till the date of actual payment un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sons is not in accordance with law. Reference in this regard is made to the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Shanti Processors which was followed in the case of M/s. Saikrupa Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Limited. vide order No. A/1282/WZB/AHD/2009, dated 23-6-2009. 2. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matters for fresh decision and fixing the liability on each and every individual separately. We make it clear that no opinion is being expressed on the merits of the case. Stay petition as also appeals get disposed off in the above manner." 3. It is seen that said order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and their appeal was dism....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y manufacturing unit separately. We note that the issue in the case of Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in respect of the related persons and even the specific para 14, to which our attention stands drawn by learned Jt. CDR has not dealt with the issue of confirmation of demand jointly and severally against two different persons. Similarly, the Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Meekin Transmission Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2010 (20) S.T.R. 390 (All.) = 2009 (238) E.L.T. 584 (All.)] relied upon by the learned Jt. CDR, nowhere lays down that confirmation of demand against two individual jointly and severally can be upheld. The same deals only with other issues and as such, not relevant for the....