TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....win 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 E/128 64/20 18 Commissio ner of Central Excise & S.T., Daman N.A. (Dept. Appeal against setting aside of redemption fine of Rs.1,20,00,000/- in the Order-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants 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 average sale price of the Wipro in terms of Rule 10A(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and not on the transaction value. Accordingly, two periodical show cause notices were issued first dated 30.03.2017 and second dated 03.05.2018.The adjudicating author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use 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 Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Shah Petroleum and Snehal Arvindbhai Shah v. C.C.E. & S.T. - Surat-II - 2023 (2) TMI 67 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD that separate penalty on partner is not imposable. As regard the department's appeal, challenging the setting aside of redem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(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) E.L.T. 623 (Tri. LB) CCE v. Asoj Soft Caps Pvt. Ltd.2012 (280) E.L.T. 88 (Tri. Ahmd.) Bil Metal Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara - 12013 (12) TMI 169 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD 3. Shri Tara Prakash, Learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that since the appellant were working exclusively for M/s. Wip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al 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 case of partnership firm, no separate penalty can be imposed on the partner. In view of the settled legal position by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat irrespective of any merit of the case, the personal penalty on Mr. Ashwin Dias is clearly not sustainable. Hence, the same is set aside. As regard the revenue's appeal, it seeks imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 1,20,00,000 which was set aside by the Co....