CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
S.L. Peeran, Jeet Ram Kait, JJ.
Agarwal Rubber (P.) Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad -Respondent
Final Order Nos. 1362-1367/2001 Stay Order Nos. 333-338/2001 and E/Stay/93 to 98/2001 Appeal Nos. E/170 to 175/2001, 1362- of 2001, 1367 of 2001, 333- of 2001, 338 of 2001, E/Stay/93 to of 2001, 98 of 2001, E/170 to of 2001, 175 of 2001
Decided On : 13-08-2001
PerS.L. Peeran :
All these appeals arise from a common Order-in-Original No. 20/2000 dated 24.11.2000 by which the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad has passed the final order in para-27 as follows:-
ORDER
(i) All the four units namely, ARPL, TMTTPL, MR and RE shall be treated as one entity and the value of clearances of all the units shall be clubbed for the period from 1995 to November, 1999 for arriving at the aggregate value of clearances for payment of Central Excise Duty and the benefits of Notification Nos. 1/93, 16/97, 8/98 and 8/99 are denied to ARPL, TMTTPL, MR and RE for the period from 1995 to November, 1999.
(ii) An amount of duty of Rs. 6,25,000/- shall be paid by M/s. Agarwal Rubber (P) Ltd., Patancheru being the Central Excise Duty short paid by them during the year 1996-97 in terms of proviso to Section 11A (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
(iii) An amount of penalty of Rs. 6,56,250/- shall be paid by M/s. Agarwal Rubber Pvt. Ltd. under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173-Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as discussed in para (22) supra.
(iv) Interest @ 24% per annum on the duty determined as above at (ii) shall be paid by M/s. Agarwal Rubber (P) Ltd. under Section 11AB vide Notification No. 8/2000-C.E. (N.T.), dt. 1.3.2000.
(v) An amount of duty of Rs. 54,38,792/- shall be paid by M/s. TM Tyres and Tubes Pvt. Ltd., Kallakal Village being the Central Excise Duty short paid by them during the period from 1997-98 to 1999-2000 (upto 11/99) in terms of proviso to Section 11A (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
(vi) An amount of penalty of Rs. 57,10,732/- shall be paid by M/s. TM Tyres and Tubes Pvt. Ltd. under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173-Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as discussed in para (22) supra.
(vii) Interest @ 24% per annum on the duty determined as above at (v) shall be paid by M/s. TM Tyres and Tubes Pvt. Ltd. under Section 11AB vide Notification No. 8/2000-C.E. (N.T.), dt. 1.3.2000.
(viii) An amount of duty of Rs. 22,48,460/- shall be paid by M/s. Maruti Rubbers, Patancheru being the Central Excise Duty not paid by them during the period from 1995-96 to 1999-2000 (up to November, 1999) in terms of proviso to Section 11A (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
(ix) An amount of penalty of Rs. 23,60,883/- shall be paid by M/s. Maruti Rubbers under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173-Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as discussed in para (22) supra.
(x) Interest @ 24% per annum on the duty determined as above at (viii) shall be paid by M/s. Maruti Rubbers under Section 11AB vide Notification No. 8/2000-C.E. (N.T.), dt. 1.3.2000.
(xi) An amount of duty of Rs. 8,92,263/- shall be paid by M/s. Robot Engineering, Patancheru being the Central Excise Duty not paid by them during the period from 1995-96 to 1999-2000 (upto November, 1999) in terms of proviso to Section 11A (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
(xii) An amount of penalty of Rs. 9,36,876/- shall be paid by M/s. Robot Engineering under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173-Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as discussed in para (22) supra.
(xiii) Interest @ 24% per annum on the duty determined as above at (xi) shall be paid by M/s. Robot Engineering under Section 11AB vide Notification No. 8/2000-C.E. (N.T.), dt. 1.3.2000.
(xiv) An amount of penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) is imposed on Shri Deendayal Agarwal, Managing Director of ARPL under Rule 209 (A) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
(xv) An amount of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) is imposed on Shri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Director of ARPL under Rule 209 (A) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Ld. Counsel Shri B.V. Kumar arguing for the appellants points out to the gist of show cause notice which has been extracted in paras-3 to 7 and submits that in terms of these paragraphs, the show cause notice demands independent duties from each of the units at the same time alleging that all the four unit
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.