2017 (9) TMI 1428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inst the appellant, M/s Rajkamal Textiles Printery; and demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,65,20,218/- along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty against the appellant, M/s Madhuri Prints have been confirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: i) The appellants namely M/s Rajkamal Textiles Printery and M/s Madhuri Print, carried out the process of dyeing of fabrics on Jigar Machines running with electric motors. ii) Preventive staff of Central Excise Division II, Rajkot carried out the search of the premises of both the appellants on 30.01.2003. iii) The factual position regarding plant and machinery, electric equipments and the process carried out by these appellant units are recorded in the Punchn....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....position of penalty against the appellant No. 1, namely, M/s Rajkamal Textiles Printery and for total demand of Rs. 2,65,20,218/- along with interest and penalty against the appellant No. 2, M/s Madhuri Print. x) The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the impugned order in original confirming the demands and penalties as mentioned earlier in para 1. 3. Both the sides, represented by the Ld. Sr. Advocate Sh. Devan Pareikh & Sh. Niraj Shah for the appellant and Ld. DR Sh. J. Nagori for the Revenue have been heard. 4. The main pleadings of the appellants are as follows: i) The Commissioner in his discussion and findings did not consider the statements, explanations tendered by the appellants and the photographs, videography recor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....kers by M/s Madhuri Print, deduction of tax while making payments to such job workers and details of such transactions shown in the balance sheet and annual reports of M/s Madhuri Print establish that M/s Madhuri Print was actually getting dyeing process undertaken through outside job workers. Commissioner misdirected himself in holding that there were no job work transactions in case of M/s Madhuri Print because the documents seized shown that the work done by independent job-worker was already recorded in the bills, balance sheet and annual reports. viii) Commissioner misread the balance sheet and did not find necessary to call for any explanation from the appellants on various entries made in the balance sheet and annual reports. i....