TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (12) TMI 248
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant. Shri R.K. Chandan, ld. JDR appeared for the revenue. 2. The ld. Consultant submitted that he is contesting only the penalty and the interest amount. He submitted that in view of the decision in the case of M/s. Alfa Chemical Ind. reported in 2002 (145) E.L.T. 454 (Tri. - Delhi), separate penalty on partnership firm and their partners is not permissible. Therefore, he contended that the pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e placed by the Commissioner (A) on the cases mentioned in Para 8 is misconceived. 3. The ld. JDR appearing for the revenue contended that the Adjudicating Authority has clearly recorded in his order that the partnership merchant manufacturers (all twelve) have not filed any defence reply. Therefore, his contention is that the point of reply having been filed by the consultant cannot be taken int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mills, M/s Manoj Prints, M/s Tushar Synthetics, M/s Roop Milon Prints I find that the officers have seized the grey challans from the Mills relating to the respective merchant manufacturers from whom the Mill had received the grey fabrics for processing and removed back to them after processing and attain the respective merchant manufacturers have sent another grey fabrics to the Mill to compensat....