TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Art Luminaires and its partner Mr. Ashwin Dias and also against the common order by the department that is Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Daman : - Appeal Appellant SCN date d Order-in- Original No. Impugne d Order- in- Appeal No. Period Duty demand (Rs.) Penalty imposed (Rs. E/128 50/20 18 Art Luminaires 30.0 3.20 17 02/C.Ex/OA /BPS- ADC/DMN/2 017-18 dated 27.10.2017 CCESA(AP PEALS)PS- 184 & 185/2018- 19 dated 24.07.201 8 April 2012 to March 2016 1,21,73,7 43 1,21,73,74 3 E/128 51/20 18 Mr. Ashwin Dias N.A. 30,00,000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or confiscation? 1.2 M/s. Art Luminaires (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellants") are, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of lighting fixtures and reflectors falling under Chapter 94 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.The Appellants have entered into an agreement with M/s. Wipro Ltd. ("Wipro") for manufacture and sale of lighting fixtures for a mutually agreed price on which excise duty was discharged. The case of the department is that there is relationship between the appellant and the buyer M/s. Wipro Ltd, on the ground that the appellant are actually job worker of M/s. Wipro Ltd and therefore, the appellant are liable to pay central excise duty on the lighting fixtures sold to Wipro based on the ave....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egard the second show cause notice, since the first show cause notice was decided against the appellant, following the same the second show cause notice was also decided by confirming the differential duty demand on the identical grounds as in the earlier show cause notice dated 30.03.2017. Therefore, he submits that there is a clear violation of principles of Natural Justice. Therefore, the Orders In Original as well as Orders In Appeal are not sustainable only on the ground of Natural Justice. He further submits that as regard the penalty imposed against the partner Shri Ashwin Dias of the partnership firm, he submits that it is settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE v. Jai Prakash Motwani and the judgment of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CCE2019 (368) ELT 135 (T) Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE 1994 (73) ELT 497 (SC) Coromandel Paints Ltd. Vs. CCE2010 (260) ELT 440 (T) CCE Vs. Innocorp Ltd 2013 (289) ELT 172 (T) Miraj Drymix Pvt, Ltd Vs. CCE2018 (8) TMI 162-CESTAT New Delhi Symphony Comforts System Ltd. Vs. CCE 2013 (313) ELT 467 (T) Nirmal R. Ruparel Vs. CCE 2014 (304) ELT 711 (T) L.V.T. Products Ltd. Vs. CCE 1997 (93) ELT 134 (T) Kwality Ice Cream Co. Vs. CCE2002 (145) ELT 584 (T) Affirmed in Supreme Court in the case reported at 2010(260) ELT 327 (SC) CCE v. Jai Prakash Motwani2009 (1) TMI 501 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Nasik2009 (235....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gard the second show cause notice, even though, hearing is conducted but the order was passed on the same line of the order passed in the show cause notice dated 30.03.2017. Therefore, taking total stock of the proceeding, we are of the view that there is a clear violation of principles of Natural Justice in adjudication of the show cause notices. As regard the appeal of Shri Ashwin Dias on whom personal penalty of Rs.30,00,000/- was imposed, we find that Shri Ashwin Dias is undisputedly partner of M/s. Art Luminaires which is a partnership firm. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High of Gujarat in the case of CCE v. Jai Prakash Motwani & judgment in the case of Shah Petroleum and Snehal Arvindbhai Shah v. C.C.E. & S.T. - Surat-II held that in cas....