M/s B.M. Enterprises, M/s Devika Enterprises Versus CGST, Delhi-I
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 492 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 10-8-2018
E/50111-50112/2018-DB – Final Order No. 52820-52821/2018
Central Excise
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical)
For the Appellant : Shri Abhas Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri V.B. Jain, D.R.
ORDER
Per Ashok Jindal:
The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein duty demand has been confirmed against M/s B.M. Enterprises and penalty has been imposed on M/s Devika Enterprises.
2. The facts of the case are that on 22.1.2013, a search was conducted at the premises of M/s B.M. Enterprises which is a proprietary concern of Smt. Seema Garg wife of Shri Devender Kumar who is engaged in manufacture of electric wire and cable and enjoying benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003. During the course of search, certain bran
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
oods from both the appellants and to impose penalty. The matter was adjudicated, demand of duty was confirmed on both the appellants and penalty equal to duty was also imposed on both the appellants. The said order was challenged before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who reduced the penalty on M/s Devika Enterprises to the tune of Rs. 2,00,670/-. Against the said order, both the appellants are before us.
3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the search was conducted on 22.1.2013 wherein certain goods were seized in the factory premises of M/s B.M. Enterprises and the show cause notice was issued to confiscate the seized goods to M/s Devika Enterprises. Later on, another show cause notice was issued on realisation of the mistake that these seized goods belongs to M/s B.M. Enterprises.
Another show cause notice was issued on 14.6.2016 to demand duty on the said goods from both the appellants is highly time barred and not sustainable in the light of the decision of Hon'ble A
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
appellant viz M/s B.M. Enterprises but there is no quantification i.e. how much quantity has purchased of Ganak brand from M/s B.M. Enterprises by the dealer. In that circumstances, in the absence of any quantification, the demand is not sustainable. Therefore, he prayed that on merits also, the Revenue have no case.
5. On the other hand, ld. AR supported the impugned order and submits that during the course of investigation, the appellant hides the facts from the department that the manufacturing unit is M/s B.M. Enterprises not M/s Devika Enterprises. Therefore, on realisation that the manufacturing unit is owned by M/s B.M. Enterprises, the subsequent show cause notice was issued.
6. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.
7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that in this case admittedly, investigation was conducted on 22.1.2013 and during the course of investigation certain goods were seized. For seizure of the said goods, a show
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =