GOLDEN TOBACCO LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the matters are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order passed by the Commissioner vide which he has confirmed the demands against M/s. Golden Tobacco Ltd., M/s. Kanpur Cigarettes Ltd. along with imposition of penalties. In addition penalties stand imposed on other applicants. Without going into the detailed merits of the matter, we find that Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty of around Rs. 29.53 crores against M/s. GTC Industries Ltd., Mumbai and Kanpur Cigarettes Ltd., Kanpur. For better appreciation, we reproduce the relevant para of the impugned order: - -

(2.) ON the other hand, it is the contention of the learned advocate that M/s. KCL was independent manufacturer of cigarettes and according to the well established law, the duty, if any, on the allegation of clandestine removal, in terms of provisions of Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, has to be directed towards the manufacturer and not towards trade name owner or purchaser.

(3.) LEGAL issue as to whether demands can be confirmed jointly and severely was the subject matter of various decision of the Tribunal. One such reference can be made to Tribunals' order in the case of Sree Aravindh Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy -, 2007 (216) E.L.T. 332 (Tri. -Chennai). Further, reference can be made to Tribunal's decision in the case of Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur - : 2013 (293) E.L.T. 124 (Tri. -Del.) as also to the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision dated 13 -4 -2011 in the case of Commissioner v. Mahesh Harlalka vide which the Tribunal's order setting aside the impugned order of the lower authorities confirming the demand jointly and severely, therefore set aside and the matter was remanded, stands upheld by High Court.