2017 (10) TMI 1176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nefit of SSI exemption Notification No.1/93 dated 28.02.1993, during the period 1996-1997 by floating dummy units, namely, M/s Rasayan Udyog and thereby not paid duty amounting to Rs. 1,78,909/-, hence, demand notice was issued for recovery of the said duty and proposal for penalty on the appellant and on other co-noticees. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty; also personal penalty on other co-noticees. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who inturn, rejected their appeals. Consequently, they approached this Tribunal against the said order. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, remanded to case to the adjudicating authority with a direction for re-calculatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the adjudicating authority to pass an appropriate order in respect of imposition of penalty on the dummy unit of M/s Rasayan Udyog i.e. on M/s Rasayan Udyog Marketing. However, the penalty on the proprietorship firm M/s Rasayan Udyog Marketing was not imposed but on the proprietress Smt. Pritiben Desai who was not a noticee in the Show Casue Notice issued. Further, he has submitted that on re-determination of duty after extending the benefit of cum duty price, the appellants are eligible to avail the benefit to discharge 25% of the penalty on fulfilment of conditions as laid down under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We find that this is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ited purpose of re-calculation of the duty, but, we find that the adjudicating authority has misinterpreted the said direction and reconsidered the whole issue again and held that the appellants are not eligible to the benefit of cum-duty-price. Also on the issue of penalty, this Tribunal after recording the fact that penalty cannot be imposed on the dummy unit, directed the adjudicating authority to pass an appropriate order keeping in mind that penalty cannot be imposed of dummy unit. This direction has also not been followed. We also find merit in the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant that simultaneous penalty on the partnership firm as well as on the partner cannot be imposed in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Gujrat High....