Page 46 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

A20 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

REPRESENTED BY : Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, ASG, Mr. B. Krishna
Prasad, AOR, Mr. Rupesh Kumar and Mr. Vikrant
Yadav, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR, Mr. Prakash Shah, Ms.
Renuka Sahu and Mr. Jasdeep Singh Dhillon,
Advocates, for the Respondent.

(1) SSI exemption — Clubbing of clearances and penalty
whether sustainable when department on dropping
of demand by adjudicating authority, filing appeal
against only one unit and not against all units?

(2) Show Cause Notice issued to partnership firm after
death of two partners whether sustainable as partner-
ship stood dissolved prior to issue of SCN?
The Gujarat High Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Ms. Justice Harsha
Devani and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sangeeta K. Vishen on 12-12-2019 issued notice
in the Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2019 in R/Tax Appeal No. 829 of 2019
filed by Nilesh V. Shah against Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs.
In this case, High Court, prima facie agreeing with contention of
petitioner, granted interim stay against order of CESTAT wherein demand based
on clubbing of clearances of more than one unit was confirmed along with penal-
ty. Issue involved in this case was clubbing of clearances of main unit with re-
portedly dummy units which was initially set aside by adjudicating authority.
On appeal filed by Department, which was against one unit only, CESTAT by
ex parte order remanded case for re-adjudication. In remand proceedings, duty
demand was confirmed with imposition of penalty on all units. Petitioner in this
case pleaded that since Department had filed appeal against one unit only, initial
order-in-original in respect of other units had become final. Another plea taken
by petitioner was that before issuance of SCN, two partners of partnership firm
of main unit had expired and hence on such date partnership stood dissolved. It
was pleaded that this contention was raised before adjudicating authority as well
as CESTAT which has not been addressed in the orders.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. Amal Paresh Dave and Mr. Paresh M. Dave, for
the Petitioner.

Demurrage — Custodian of import goods eligible to claim
demurrage charges as per law notwithstanding rea-
sons for delay in clearance
A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Chief
Justice D.N. Patel and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, in its order dated 17-
1-2020 in W.P. (C) No. 2597 of 2019 has dismissed the plea of petitioner (Rikon
Impex v. Union of India) to issue mandamus for waiver of demurrage charges for
prolonged custody of import goods. In this case, Bill of Entry was filed by peti-
tioner on 19-8-2017 and order/NOC of re-export was issued by Customs on 15-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  46