M\/s. Raj Ganesh Enterprises, M\/s. Sowbaghya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 902 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 10-7-2018
Appeal No. E\/42019 to 42021\/2017 – Final Order Nos. 41966-41968\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nShri G. Natarajan, Advocate for the Appellants
\nShri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that M\/s. Sri Ganapathi Marketing and M\/s. Annapoorani Industries were engaged in manufacture and clearance of wet grinders in the name “Sowbaghya”. Based on intelligence that these units were not discharging central excise duty and are not eligible for SSI benefi<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n j Ganesh Enterprises = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Industries to manufacture wet grinders with the brand name. It is evident that they are guilty of violation of Central Excise Act and the rules made therein and therefore the penalties imposed are legal and proper. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Raj Ganesh Enterprises, M\/s. Sowbaghya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise CoimbatoreCentral Excise2018 (9) TMI 902 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 10-7-2018Appeal No. E\/42019 to 42021\/2017 – Final Order Nos. 41966-41968\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate for the Appellants Shri S. Govindarajan, … Continue reading “M\/s. Raj Ganesh Enterprises, M\/s. Sowbaghya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13764","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13764","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13764"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13764\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13764"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13764"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13764"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nRs.5,00,000\/-
\nSri Ganapathi Marketing
\nE\/42020\/2017
\nSowbaghya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
\nRs.1,00,000\/-
\nAnnapoorani Industries
\nE\/42021\/2017
\nSowbaghya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
\nRs.5,00,000\/-
\nSri Ganapathi Marketing
\n3. He submitted that the brand name “Sowbaghya” belonged to M\/s. Raj Ganesh Enterprises for a limited period upto March 2012 and thereafter it was assigned to Sowbaghya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. In fact, the other units like Sri Ganapathi Marketing and Annapoorani Industries were engaged to manufacture the wet grinders with “Sowbaghya” brand name but they were properly instructed to conduct the manufacturing activity in a rural area. In contrast to the instruction given by the appellant, the said units started the<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. Heard both sides.
\n6. On perusal of records and after hearing submissions made by both sides, it is brought out that the main appellants against whom duty of Rs. 48,87,933\/- (Sri Ganapathi Marketing) and Rs. 9,81,294\/- (Annapoorani Industries) have so far not filed any appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) as submitted by the ld. counsel for the appellant. The only allegation against the appellant is that they dealt with the goods on which duty was not discharged. Taking into consideration the facts of the situation, I am of t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n