2019 (2) TMI 1235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Apparels. Neither M/s Ayush Apparel nor Job worker M/s S.P. Associates paid the duty on the said readymade garments. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued which was culminated into Adjudicating Order wherein duty demand of Rs. 34,88,015/- was confirmed under section 11A against M/s Ayush Apparels, equal amount of penalty was imposed. Interest at the prescribed rate was also demanded under section 11AB and various other penalties were imposed, including a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on Shri Hiren K Agarwal, proprietor of M/s Ayush Apparel. Being aggrieved by OIO, assessee filed appeal before the Commr. (A), wherein while disposing the appeal, the Ld. Commr. (A) has extended the benefit of cum duty price to the assessee and penalty of Rs. 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the average of total value for the period when challans are not available considering the value for remaining period. Only by this way, the total aggregate value can be arrived at. He submits that only because the challans are not available which is beyond the control of assessee, the SSI exemption cannot be denied. He further submits that since in the normal course, the manufacturer is supposed to pay the duty, the assessee was under the bonafide belief that job worker is supposed to pay the duty. Therefore, demand for extended period is not sustainable. Consequently, penalty is also not sustainable. 2.1 As regard the Revenue's appeal, he submits that Ld. Commr. (A) has rightly extended the benefit of cum duty price by relying on the H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t case, the principal that is M/s Ayush Apparels has not authorized the job worker M/s SP associates to discharge the Excise Duty. Therefore, the M/s Ayush Apparels was legally liable for payment of duty even though he did not manufacture the goods and the job worker has manufactured the goods. Accordingly, there is no doubt that the principal M/s Ayush Apparels is liable to pay the duty. As regard the submission of Ld. Counsel that the manufacturer alone has to discharge the duty, it has no force for the reason that as per section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944, it is provided that "there shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed a duty of excise". As per this provision, the Government has power to prescribe the mann....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 (259) E.L.T. 53 (Guj.), we extend the benefit of 25% penalty subject to condition that the total duty liability adjudged, interest and 25% penalty stands paid within 1 month from re-computation of demand and communication thereof to the assessee by the Adjudicating authority. 4.1 As regard the Revenue's appeal, we find that the ground of the Revenue is that against Order In Original, M/s Ayush Apparels and Hiren K Agarwal were supposed to file two appeals. We do not agree with this proposal for the reason that M/s Ayush Apparels being the proprietorship concern and Hiren K Agarwal proprietor, thereof, are one and the same. Therefore, being one person only one appeal filed before the Commr. (A) is correct and legal. Accordingly, the penal....