2024 (1) TMI 715

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Chauhan , Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rajesh K Agarwal , Superintendnet ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The brief facts of the case are that there is a confirmed demand of duty against a partnership firm namely K.J. Vakharia and Company. The department issued notice for demand of dues of said partnership firm to the appellant Shri Jawahr K. Vakahria along with the part....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....04 for Rs. 1,59,87,146/- and 32,726/- respectively. 2.1 He submits that as regard the OIO dated 28.01.2000 the period involved was April-1994 to August-1994. Whereas, the present appellant Shri Javahar K Vakharia taken retirement from the partnership firm on August- 1993, which is much before the period for which duty demand is involved. Moreover, no statement was recorded of the appellant, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant what was the status of the appellant. 4.1 As submitted by the Learned Counsel, the present appellant had resigned as a partner from the partnership firm in August, 1993 and the period involved in the present demand is April, 1994 to August 1994. On this basis it prima facie appears that the period for which the demand was raised, when the appellant was not a partner, how he can be held ....