TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner inter alia confirms the demand of Central Excise Duty of Rs. 13,13,232/- (Rupees thirteen lakh thirteen thousand two hundred thirty two only) along with interest and also imposes equivalent penalty against the assessee namely M/s Perfect Auto Spares. The Order-in-Original inter alia also imposes a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each on Shri S.C. Thareja, partner in the assessee firm, M/s Perfect Auto Spares and Shri M.L Thareja, partner, both of whom are also appellants. 2. The appellants have been represented by ld. Advocate Shri Ashok Dhingra and Revenue has been represented by the ld. AR, Shri R.K. Manjhi. 3. The brief facts of the case are that: i. W.e.f June 1, 2006 parts of automobiles were included in Schedule III of the Central E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2010. Hence, these appeals before this Tribunal by the appellants. 4. The ld. Advocate based on the appeal no. memoranda and written submissions inter-alia submits as under:- i. The process of packing/ re-packing and labeling/ re labeling was brought under Central Excise Duty net by a deeming fiction of law w.e.f June 1, 2006, therefore goods packed/ re-packed and labelled/ re-labelled prior to June 1, 2006 cannot be made liable to duty as the same activity was not chargeable to Excise Duty prior to June 1, 2006. The reliance was placed on the supreme court decision in CCE Vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1996 (83) ELT 3 SC. ii. Large No. of stock seized by the Officers was manufactured prior to June 1, 2006 and therefore was not liabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h made by the Central Excise Officers at the premises of the appellant assessee on 27.07.2006. The appellant assessee's partners, Shri M.L Thareja and Shri S.C. Thareja have admitted in their statements recorded by the Revenue that they were clearing the excisable goods without the cover of invoices against cash without accounting the same in the statutory record. It is also on record that the appellants were not able to prove that the stock seized on 27 October, 2006 pertained to the goods manufactured prior to 1.6.2006, the date from which such goods became excisable. 6.2 It is on record that goods were lying in premises of the appellants un-accounted and they were manufactured without obtaining any Central Excise registration. There are....