TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 983
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r vide which he has confirmed the demands against M/s. Golden Tobacco Ltd., M/s. Kanpur Cigarettes Ltd. along with imposition of penalties. In addition penalties stand imposed on other applicants. 2. Without going into the detailed merits of the matter, we find that Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty of around Rs. 29.53 crores against M/s. GTC Industries Ltd., Mumbai and Kanpur Cigarettes Ltd., Kanpur. For better appreciation, we reproduce the relevant para of the impugned order :- (i) Confirm and order recovery of demand of Rs. 29,53,36,551.65 (Rupees Twenty nine crore fifty three lac thirty six thousand five hundred fifty one and paise sixty five only) not paid during the period 14-9-90 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terms of provisions of Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, has to be directed towards the manufacturer and not towards trade name owner or purchaser. 4. In any case, we find that adjudicating authority has not been able to make out his mind as to whether the duty has to be confirmed, if at all, against M/s. GTC Industries or KCL. It seems that on account of failure to come to conclusive finding as regards the evader of duty, he has found it easy to confirm the demands jointly and severely against both the parties. Apart from the imposing independent penalty of Rs. 29 crore to M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. 5. Legal issue as to whether demands can be confirmed jointly and severely was the subject matter of various decision of the Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me has not been relied upon. 8. Learned advocate also has his grievance about the issue of cross examination of the certain deponents of statements, which was allowed by the Commissioner but on account of certain reasons, where the deponent could not make themselves available for cross examination, by referring to the provisions of Section 9(1) of Central Excise Act, he has not produced them for cross examination and has also relied upon the statements of said persons. 9. Learned DR submits that in some cases summons could not be served upon the deponent on account of non-availability of their address. If the appellant can help in serving the summon, they should be directed to do so. We make it clear that we have not gone in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich have not been dealt with in the order, need to be pointed out. 13. The duty demand of Rs. 29,53,36,51/- demanded from M/s. Kanpur Cigarette Ltd. and M/s. Golden Tobacco Industries jointly pertains to the period from 14th Oct.'90 to 31st March'95. The Show Cause Notice had been issued on 30-9-1995 demanding the duty mentioned above from M/s. Kanpur Cigarette Ltd. and M/s. Golden Tobacco Industries jointly and it also proposed imposition of penalty on them and other noticees. The allegation of duty evasion against M/s. Golden Tobacco Industries was based on a number of documents and oral evidence in form of statements. Since during the period of dispute, there was no provision for demanding interest on duty in the case of duty ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s well as non-relied upon documents, is surprising as there was specific Circular No. 171/5/96-CX, dated 2-2-1996 of the Board in this regard according to which whenever any documents/records are seized, immediate efforts must be made to segregate the documents which are proposed to be relied upon in framing/establishing the charges, from the remaining documents/records and once the Show Cause Notice has been issued, the documents/records which have not been relied upon, may be returned to the party under proper receipt and the assessee must also be allowed to obtain photocopies of the documents relied upon documents. Not only this, Rule 24A of Central Excise Rules, 2002 introduced vide Notification No. 17/09-C.E., dated 7-7-2009 provides t....