Shri Ashok Arora vs Cce & St, Ghaziabad
- CitationAppeal No. GZB/EXCUS/000/APP/114 120/13-14 dated 12/08/2013 passed by The Commissioner of
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A demand of duty cannot be confirmed against several assessees jointly and severally; each person from whom duty is sought must be separately called upon to pay the duty demanded from him, so that an order which demands duty jointly and severally is not sustainable. Where an adjudicating authority has passed an order demanding duty from several noticees together, and the matter has already been remanded by the Tribunal for denovo adjudication in the same appellant's own case for an earlier period, the appropriate course is to set aside the impugned order and remand it to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with that earlier direction, demanding duty separately from each appellant if required.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Excise Stay Application Nos. 50485, 50487, 50489, 50491, 50493, 50495 and 50497 of 2014 in Appeal Nos. 50384-50390 of 2014
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. GZB/EXCUS/000/APP/114 120/13-14 dated 12/08/2013 passed by The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad.]
For Approval and signature :
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of :
the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for
publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair :
copy of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Department Authorities?
M/s Associated Engineering Projects]
M/s Manglam Wires ]
Shri Shalinder Raghuvanshi ]
Shri Ashok Arora ] Appellants
M/s R.K. Industries ]
Shri Durvesh Kumar ]
Shri Shekhar Raghuvanshi ]
Versus
CCE & ST, Ghaziabad Respondent
Appearance
Shri Kumar Vikram, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri M.S. Negi, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Final Order No. 50378-50384/2015 Dated : 16/02/2015
Per. Ashok Jindal :-
The appellant are in appeals against the impugned orders alongwith the application for stay.
2. After hearing the parties, the appeals themselves can be disposed of at this stage, therefore, after allowing the pre-deposit we take up the appeals all together as considered by both sides. The Adjudicating Authority passed the following orders :-
(i) I disallow the benefit of SSI exemption to M/s R.K. Industries, & M/s Manglam Wire, separately in view of the provisions of Sub-Para V of Para 2 of the Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01/03/2003.
(ii) I confirm demand of duty amounting to Rs. 15,46,422/- (BED Rs. 15,01,380/- + ED Cess Rs. 30,027/- + S&H Ed. Cess Rs. 15,015/-) under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against Associated Engineering Projects, M/s R.K. Industries, & M/s Manglam Wire.
(iii) I confirm demand of interest, at applicable rate on the above said demand (at para (ii) above) under the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
(iv) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 15,46,422/- (Fifteen Lakh Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty two only) on Associated Engineering Projects, M/s R.K. Industries, & M/s Mangalam Wire, under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 readwith Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
(v) I also impose penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakhs only) each on Shri Shailendra Raghuvanshi and Shri Shekhar Raghuvanshi, and Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each on Shri Ashok Arora and Shri Durvesh Kumar under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
In this order, the Adjudicating Authority has asked the duty to be paid by M/s Associated Engineering Projects, M/s R.K. Industries and M/s Manglam Wires all together. The said orders was challenged by the appellants before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who asked the appellant to make some pre-deposit which appellants fails to do so, therefore, the appeals were dismissed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for the non-compliance of the order. In these circumstances, appellants are before us.
3. We find that duty has been demanded jointly and severally which is not permissible and in appellants own case for the earlier period vide order No. 56325-56334/2013 dated 26/4/13 this Tribunal has set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for denovo adjudication to demand duty separately from all the appellants before us, if required. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand back to the Adjudicating Authority for denovo adjudication, as directed by this Tribunal vide order dated 26/4/13. Appeals are disposed of in the above terms alongwith the stay applications.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court.)
(Rakesh Kumar)
Member (Technical)
(Ashok Jindal)
Member (Judicial)
PK
??
??
??
??
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free