TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... main appellant had an unit at LBS Marg, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400 080. The appellant is a subsidiary company of S.H. Kelkar & Co. Pvt. Ltd., as well as the appellant were the Vaze/Kelkar family members. There was a dispute between the promoters viz. the G.D. Kelkar faction, the S.V. Vaze faction and the R.V. Vaze faction. The dispute was finally settled and in terms of the settlement, the entire business consisting of S.H. Kelkar & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and all of its subsidiaries, including the appellant came under the control of the R.V. Vaze faction. In terms of this settlement, inter alia, the land on which the unit of the appellant at LBS Marg, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400 080 is located, was handed over to the G.D. Kelkar faction. However, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....02/2011, the appellants themselves informed the department about the same and further applied for registration of new adjacent premises on 17/02/2011. Consequent to the said intimation, an application for registration, the officials visited the site and seized the goods which were shifted from the old factory to the proposed factory (adjacent premises). Thereafter the matter was investigated and a show-cause notice was issued which was adjudicated and the original authority vide order dated 13/12/2012 ordered as under: i) I confirm the demand of duty of Rs. 2044/- in respect of the finished goods, valued at Rs. 19,843/- under sub-section (2) of the then Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. ii) I confirm the demand of duty of Rs. 19,46....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the terms of the Bond and encashing the Bank guarantee, furnished by KFPL to the extent of the redemption fine. ix) I impose a penalty of Rs. 28,35,369/- (Rs.2044/- + Rs. 19,46,355/- + Rs. 8,86,970/-) on KFPL under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. x) I impose a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on M/s. S.H. Kelkar & Co. Pvt. Ltd., (Noticee No.2) under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. xi) I impose a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on Shri Kedar R Vaze (Noticee No. 3) under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. xii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Shri Prakash B Kalbhor (Noticee No.5) under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. xiii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Shri SV Paranjape (Noticee No.5) u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods. He also submitted the work-in-progress cannot be considered as excisable goods and therefore, no duty could be charged or can be claimed on the same. It was also submitted that they had no intention whatsoever either to evade the duty or not to follow any rules. He further submitted that the whole exercise was revenue neutral as duty debited would be available as credit on the same day in other unit. Only if the appellant would have applied for registration on 10/02/2011 instead of 17/02/2011, the objections of the department would have been over. Further, if they would have applied for storing the goods on or before 10/02/2011 in terms of CBEC Circular No. 610/1/02-CX dated 01/01/2002, the objection would be over. In any case, Modva....