2019 (1) TMI 177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advs. For the Respondents : Mr. Somnath Ganguly with Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee & Mr. Parashar Baidya, Advs. ORDER Three writ petitions are taken up for analogous hearing as they involve the same order in original. The three writ petitioners are individuals who feel aggrieved by the imposition of penalty made in the order in original. The order in original received consideration by the Court ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....impose a penalty which it cannot do. He submits, once an entity is found to be a trader, such entity cannot be made a manufacturer for the purposes of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the petitioners are persons who are sought to be proceeded against in respect of transactions where the provisions of the Act of 1944 are not attracted, the proceedings are bad in law. Consequently the imposition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f 1944 and its applicability was considered in V.K. Udyog Ltd. (supra) and was negatived. As on date, there is no appeal pending against M/s. V.K. Udyog Ltd. (supra). As noted above, the three petitioners before me are the persons connected with the affairs of the legal entity viz. V.K. Udyog Ltd. The department had issued a show cause notice dated September 11, 2013 against the petitioners. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vement of the petitioners in the entire transaction. Such allegations stand substantiated in the adjudication proceedings. The impugned order in original proceeds on the basis that, the three petitioners before the Court as Managing Director, Director and Manager of M/s. V.K. Udyog Ltd. were involved in the fraudulent transactions. Therefore, the order in original proceeds to impose the penalty as....