1994 (5) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ged proprietary concern owned by one R.N. Kapur is nothing but a front company i.e. M/s. Dayal Laminates (P) Ltd. owned by Sahebdass and Gurucharandas and that martrecious (sic) segregation has been designed in a ruse to earn eligibility of the exemption from payment of duty in terms of the Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986. 2.Pursuant to the report of the intelligence, the Central Excise Officers conducted simultaneous raid on 9th and 10th October, 1991 on the alleged    two units and seized documents. After show clause notice and order of adjudication dated 16-7-1993 (Annexure P/14) is passed by respondent No. 3 imposing duty of Rs. 20,09487.1 and Rs. 73,631.65 under Section 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... considered properly. The demand in 92 in respect of alleged evasion of 1986 to(1) 1991 is ex facie barred by limitation being not within 6 months. Products of two concerns are not liable to be clubbed. And if(2) these concerns are treated to be one, then how is that penalty was imposed separately ? Benefit of Notification 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 was available(3) and undeniable and as such no duty was payable. The concerns are incurring losses and order causes `undue(4) hardship'. Closure of concern since 1993 is in force on the strength of(5) the orders of respondent No. 3. Valuable right of appeal should not be seen to be frustrated(6) by inability to deposit the amount. Views expressed by Apex Court and various High Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e basis of closure and losses cannot be categorised as futile and do not appear to have been evaluated judiciously. Therefore all decisions tear up the tenebrosity and illuminate the path. On scrutiny of the order, as impugned, with reference to point and position as chronicled above and decisions as cited above, I thus find that the order is not resting on the linchpin of sound judicial principles and suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. Prima facie merit of the case seems to have been overlooked to some extent with the result that remedy is rendered to become promise of unreality. There can be no lis like law versus justice and as such there has to be harmony, not antinomy. The order thus needs to be modified. 12.I therefore disp....