2016 (3) TMI 299

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eferred to as the "assessee") a partnership firm was engaged in the manufacture of "Lift Winding Machine unit and parts thereof" falling under Ch 84 and 85 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1995. On 7.6.2005 the Central Excise officers visited the factory premises of the assessee and the premises of two other proprietorship firms namely M/s Leo Engineers and M/s Eletech Industries. After examining the records and documents, the Central Excise officers were in the opinion that the clearance value of the other two units would be clubbed with the assessee. They have calculated the demand of duty Rs. 13,84,180/- for the period 2004-05. The Ld Advocate submits that in order to avoid legal complexity and further litigation, the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alty can be imposed on the partner as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pravin N Shah vs CESTAT, Ahmedabad - 2014(305)ELT.480 (Guj). It is also contended that the Revenue held that the other units are dummy and therefore no penalty can be imposed on the dummy units. He relied upon the following cases: 1. Umiya Ceramics vs CCE, Rajkot - 2007(211)ELT.500 (Tri.Ahmd) 2. CCE, Kanpur vs Auto India - 2007(213)ELT.436 (Tri.Del) 4. On the other hand, the Ld Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the Central Excise Officers detected the irregularity and thereafter they have paid the duty and therefore imposition of penalty are justified. He fur....