M\/s Shri Mahavir Industries Versus CGST, Delhi-III
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 210 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – 2019 (369) E.L.T. 1216 (Tri. – Del.)
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 17-9-2018
E\/51451\/2018-SM – 52993\/2018
Central Excise
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
\nFor the Appellant : Ms. Rinki Arora, Advocate
\nFor the Respondent : Shri P. Juneja, DR
\nORDER
\nPER ARCHANA WADHWA:
\nAfter hearing both the sides, I find that proceedings for confirmation of demand, on the ground of clandestine removal, were initiated against one M\/s Diwan Industries, a partnership firm.
\nInasmuch as the proprietor of the present appellant M\/s Mahavir Industries, Shri Prabhat Jain was one of the partners in M\/s Diwan Industries, notice also pr<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ies did not deposit, their appeal was dismissed for default. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n f the refund sanctioned to the proprietary unit is legal and proper. However, I find that there is no dispute about the fact that proceedings were initiated against M\/s Mahavir Industries by treating the same as an individual manufacturer. On success of their appeal before Tribunal, such proprietary unit is admittedly entitled to the refund of the amount pre-deposited by them before the Tribunal. A proprietary unit is an individual legal entity and any refunds due to the proprietary unit cannot be adjusted or appropriated towards the demand which may be pending recovery against an another independent legal entity, of which the proprietor of unit is a partner. It has to be kept in mind that the present proceeding are not recovery proceeding <\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Shri Mahavir Industries Versus CGST, Delhi-IIICentral Excise2018 (10) TMI 210 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – 2019 (369) E.L.T. 1216 (Tri. – Del.)CESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 17-9-2018E\/51451\/2018-SM – 52993\/2018Central ExciseMrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Ms. Rinki Arora, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri P. Juneja, DR ORDER PER ARCHANA WADHWA: … Continue reading “M\/s Shri Mahavir Industries Versus CGST, Delhi-III”<\/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-14259","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14259","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=14259"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14259\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14259"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14259"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14259"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. As far as the present appellant is concerned, they took up the matter before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, by way of filing a writ petition which was rejected, and as a consequence, the appellant deposited the directed amount in question. On such deposit, their appeal was taken up for final disposal and vide Final Order No. 50135\/2017 dated 6.1.2017, their appeal was allowed.
\n4. As a consequence of their allowing of their appeal, they became entitled to the refund of the amount pre-deposited by them in terms of Section 35F. Accordingly, they approached their jurisdictional Central Excise Assistant Commissioner for refund of the amount in question.
\n5. Vide his order dated <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n